Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Ahmed v. United States Department of State

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided September 11, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02754

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Plaintiffs also seek to compel the State Department to issue a final decision on certain of the Plaintiffs’ visa applications, which Plaintiffs claim have been stuck in administrative limbo for an unreasonable time.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Each is seeking a family-based immigrant visa, either for themselves or their immediate relative.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ first two causes of action challenge the State Department’s allegedly unreasonable delay in processing their visa cases and seek relief under the APA and Mandamus Act compelling a final decision on the applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Counts I and II of the Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Counts I and II of the Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Counts I and II of the Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Count V of the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. (3) The motion is otherwise DENIED.
Months pending 38 months from the application to the suit; 46.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
attended a visa interview on November 1, 2022, at the U.S. embassy in Addis Ababa.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
At this point, the State Department’s delay has been between eleven and fifteen months since its most recent action in each case, and this length of time is generally not found to be unreasonable.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ APA and mandamus claims challenging the allegedly unreasonable delay in adjudicating their visas are not subject to consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Somalia Read by a model
a Somali national residing in Ethiopia.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10998 Read by a model
Then, in March 2026, Hussein received an email refusing his visa application on the ground that he is ineligible for a visa under Proclamation 10998 and Section 212(f) of the INA.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Each is seeking a family-based immigrant visa, either for themselves or their immediate relative.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02754
Filed
December 31, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.