Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Doe v. Mullin

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided May 14, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01502

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
Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate her application by May 20, 2026, when her current work authorization will expire.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document); I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
On the same day, Plaintiff filed applications for permanent residency (Form I-485), a travel document (Form I-131), and employment authorization (Form I-765).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Three days later, she moved for a TRO enjoining USCIS from applying PM-0192 and PM-0194 to her pending I-765 application and ordering it to adjudicate the request before May 20.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED IN PART:
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED IN PART:
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED IN PART:
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Rather than set a deadline for USCIS to adjudicate her application, however, the Court will order USCIS to do so according to her place in line assuming the adjudicative hold was never, and will never be, applied to her.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
The Government and USCIS are ORDERED to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-765 in the ordinary course—i.e., on a first in, first out basis, according to the order in which her application was received.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
The Government and USCIS are hereby ENJOINED from applying PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194, including the adjudicative hold policy set forth therein, to Plaintiff’s I- 765 application for employment authorization.
Months pending 5.6 months from the application to the suit; 5.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In November 2025, Plaintiff’s spouse, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 petition—typically, a prerequisite to obtaining permanent residency based on marriage—on Plaintiff’s behalf.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
However, as courts in this District have held, the first in, first out principal is a reasonable rule governing the time USCIS takes to adjudicate I-765 applications, at least absent a showing of exceptional delay.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the first in, first out principal is a reasonable rule governing the time USCIS takes to adjudicate I-765 applications, at least absent a showing of exceptional delay.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Canadian citizen, born in Iran, who currently resides in Seattle, Washington.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-01502
Filed
May 1, 2026
Ended
August 7, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
98 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-08-07

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.