Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Bayatapalli v. Edlow

Western District of WashingtonJamal N WhiteheadDecided July 22, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00100

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
This case concerns the alleged unreasonable delay by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in adjudicating Plaintiffs Bhanumathi Bayatapalli and Shiva Reddy Tadi’s applications for adjustment of status based on Bayatapalli’s participation in the EB-5 Investor Visa program.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Bayatapalli and Tadi also filed Forms I-485, Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a Court order compelling Defendants to adjudicate their Form I-485 applications within 60 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants Joseph B. Edlow, Director of USCIS, and USCIS’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk is directed to close the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 10.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ due process claim without prejudice.
Months pending 14.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications have been pending since May 6, 2025
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This factor, the most important one, favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Their applications sit in the ordinary queue and have for 14 months, and at that length, with nothing freezing them in place, the ordinary sequence of adjudication supplies the rule of reason.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The Court concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdictional bar does not apply and DENIES Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
Nationality India Read by a model
Both are citizens of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00100
Filed
January 12, 2026
Ended
July 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
191 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2026-07-22 for the defendants, ground not stated

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.