1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
RASHA IHSAN HASAN on behalf of CASE NO. C25-5734-KKE
8
IHSAN HASAN ALI,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
9
Plaintiff(s), PREJUDICE
v.
10
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
11
STATE, et al.,
12
Defendant(s).
13
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a
14
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff Rasha Ihsan Hasan,
15
representing herself and proceeding in forma pauperis, did not file an opposition. For the reasons
16
below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.
17
On August 20, 2025, Hasan filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a
18
proposed complaint for writ of mandamus. Dkt. No. 1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke
19
granted Hasan’s application (Dkt. No. 4), and summons was issued (Dkt. No. 6). Hasan asserts
20
that Defendants have unlawfully delayed resolving her father’s immigrant visa application in
21
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Dkt. No. 5. She seeks a writ of mandamus
22
compelling the readjudication of his application after it was initially refused by a consular officer.
23
Id.
24
1 Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint on two separate grounds: First, they argue
2 that the consular officer who reviewed the application already performed the only mandatory duty
3 involved by refusing the visa application. Dkt. No. 11 at 2. Second, Defendants contend that,
4 even if there was a mandatory duty to readjudicate the application post-refusal, Hasan cannot show
5 that the approximately sixteen-month delay since the initial refusal is unreasonable as a matter of
6 law. Id. Hasan did not respond or otherwise oppose the motion.
7 In this district, “if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be
8 considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
9 7(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s case for failure to respond
10 to a motion to dismiss, consistent with a local rule. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53
11 (9th Cir. 1995). “Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several
12 factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
13 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
14 disposition of cases [on] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id.
15 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
16 The public’s interest in expeditious resolution, the Court’s need to manage its docket, and
17 the risk of prejudice to Defendants all weigh in favor of dismissal here. Because the Court will
18 dismiss the case without prejudice, there is no less drastic sanction available. Accordingly, four
19 of the five factors favor granting the motion to dismiss. The public policy favoring disposal of
20 cases on their merits weighs against dismissal, but this is outweighed by the other factors.
21 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) and dismisses the case
22 without prejudice.
23
24
1 Dated this 6th day of January, 2026.
2
A
3
Kymberly K. Evanson
4 United S tates District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.