Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Doe v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Western District of WashingtonRichard A. JonesDecided August 29, 2021No. 2:21-cv-01128

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 Department of State Read by a model
In the stipulation, the parties stated that the State Department had contacted Plaintiffs by email on August 19, 2021 to inform them that they were eligible for evacuation assistance from Afghanistan.
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
The claims in the Complaint focused on the adjudication of the I-730 petitions.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Given these challenges, Plaintiffs filed the pending emergency motion requesting the Court to order Defendants to provide Jane and Junior with their passports or an alternative means to evacuate Afghanistan.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims are moot because Defendants have re-affirmed the I-730 petitions, as requested in the Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims are moot because Defendants have re-affirmed the I-730 petitions, as requested in the Complaint.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims are moot because Defendants have re-affirmed the I-730 petitions, as requested in the Complaint.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Finding that Plaintiffs’ requests for relief are not based on claims pled in the Complaint, the Court concludes that it has no authority to grant the requested injunctive relief.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ mandamus and APA claims are moot because Defendants have re-affirmed the I-730 petitions, as requested in the Complaint.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:21-cv-01128
Filed
August 20, 2021
Ended
November 1, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
73 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. Other suits in this court.

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.