Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Alam v. Blinken

Eastern District of CaliforniaDecided November 15, 2024No. 2:24-cv-01103

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Further, there is an identifiable rationale behind the delay: after Plaintiff S. 13 Alam’s interview, her application was placed into administrative processing to allow 14 the State Department to gather additional information and obtain a SAO.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
on April 28, 2021, timely submitted the Form DS-260 along with supporting 24 documentation to the NVC.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to order that Defendants process Plaintiff S. Alam’s visa 24 application within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion 21 | for Dismissal and Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Because the Court will grant summary judgment Plaintiffs’ APA claim, the 6 | Court will also grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed the pending Motion for Dismissal and Summary Judgment on 2 June 10, 2024, seeking dismissal or judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion 21 | for Dismissal and Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of 23 | Court is directed to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Because the Court will grant summary judgment Plaintiffs’ APA claim, the 6 | Court will also grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claim.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
The Court accordingly grants summary judgment in Defendants favor 18 | on Plaintiffs’ Due Process claim.
Months pending 11.8 months from the application to the suit; 42.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on April 28, 2021, timely submitted the Form DS-260 along with supporting 24 documentation to the NVC.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The effect of expediting Plaintiffs’ application 28 undoubtedly favors the Defendants, as expediting Plaintiff S. Alam’s application would 1 result in no net gain in the backlog while disadvantaging visa applicants of higher 2 priority or of the same priority but whose applications have been pending longer.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The Court finds that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is not applicable 13 here.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
is a Pakistani national currently residing in Pakistan.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Muhammad Wajahat Alam (“M. Alam”) is a United States (“U.S.”) citizen. 3 (Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 58.) Plaintiff Shakila Wajahat Alam (“S. Alam”), Plaintiff M. 4 Alam’s wife, is a Pakistani national currently residing in Pakistan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01103
Filed
April 11, 2024
Ended
November 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
218 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.