Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Hong Wang v. Chertoff

Western District of WashingtonRichard A. JonesDecided March 7, 2008No. 2:07-cv-00154

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment compelling USCIS to adjudicate their I-485 applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On December 16, 2004, Wang filed an I-485 application to adjust to permanent resident status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment compelling USCIS to adjudicate their I-485 applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 7) and orders USCIS to issue a decision on Wang's application for adjustment of status within 45 days of this order.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
This matter comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. ## 7, 8).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion (Dkt. # 7), DENIES Defendants' motion (Dkt. # 8), and mandates further action by Defendants as described at the conclusion of this order.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 7) and orders USCIS to issue a decision on Wang's application for adjustment of status within 45 days of this order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 7) and orders USCIS to issue a decision on Wang's application for adjustment of status within 45 days of this order.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 7) and orders USCIS to issue a decision on Wang's application for adjustment of status within 45 days of this order.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The court declines to consider the issue, as it is not sufficiently developed.
Months pending 38.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 16, 2004, Wang filed an I-485 application to adjust to permanent resident status.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
As to the first of these so-called " TRAC factors," the court finds no "rule of reason" guiding the Government's processing of Wang's application.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
The Government asserts that name checks are processed in "first in, first out" fashion. Gov't Mot. at 5. A comparison of the one-week processing of Yuxin Wang's name check to Wang's still-pending name check quickly disproves this assertion.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The court holds that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip the court of jurisdiction over this action.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:07-cv-00154
Filed
January 31, 2007
Ended
June 3, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
85 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.