Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Guerra v. United States

Western District of WashingtonRicardo S. MartinezDecided October 21, 2014

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
USCIS’ persistent delay and willful inaction thwarted the adjudication of Ms. Guerra’s application on its merits, leading to the initiation of this lawsuit solely to dislodge Ms. Guerra’s file from the seemingly apathetic talons of the S.F. Asylum Office.
Form or filing I-612 Read by a model
Ms. Guerra filed a second 1-612 waiver application with USCIS (WAC-08-231-50628) and DOS (838186) on August 25, 2008, this time based on “exceptional hardship” to Mr. Trabanino.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
in order to compel Defendants to adjudicate Ms. Guerra’s J-l waiver application so that her NACARA derivative application could then be approved by US-CIS.
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. # 104) is GRANTED in part.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. # 104) is GRANTED in part.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Motion for Attorneys’ Fees by Plaintiffs Linda Guerra and Fermín Trabanino.
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. # 104) is GRANTED in part.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. # 104) is GRANTED in part.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
As USCIS has granted Ms. Guerra LPR status (see Dkt. # 112, Ex. 1)-the ultimate relief sought in this action-whether to award bad faith attorneys' fees is the only issue remaining in this litigation.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
As a result, the parties never litigated the claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and the Court never determined whether the final January 20, 2011 denial was proper.
Months pending 10.8 months from the application to the suit; 28.8 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On January 20, 2011, USCIS issued its final decision denying the hardship waiver again based on the State Department’s recommendation.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
While Plaintiffs’ claims were ultimately rendered moot by USCIS’ reopening of Ms. Guerra’s asylum application, the Court may still assess fees based on Defendants’ bad faith conduct during litigation.
Nationality Honduras Read by a model
Plaintiff Ms. Linda Guerra is a citizen of Honduras, residing in Snohomish, WA.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.