Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

El Centro Regional Medical Center v. Blinken

Southern District of CaliforniaDecided July 26, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00361

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
The central question in this case is whether the State Department’s delay in 11 adjudicating the Form I-140 Petition at issue here is unreasonable.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
application for an immigrant visa within ten days.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Santos’ application was then placed in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed below, the 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
On May 14, 2021, the 9 government filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter 10 jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendant Antony Blinken’s Motion to Dismiss 21 Plaintiffs El Centro Regional Medical Center (“ECRMC”) and Jefferson Larot Santos’ 22 Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
Months pending 6.9 months from the application to the suit; 17.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Santos 3 paid the requisite fees to the NVC on February 6, 2020 and submitted the required 4 documents later that month.
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 applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
First, the delay in this case is generally reasonable considering the current global 9 pandemic.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Fourth, allowing Plaintiff Santos to skip to the front of the 7 || line would simply move everyone else awaiting adjudication farther back in the queue. 8 do so would be unfair.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Philippines Read by a model
Plaintiff Santos is a citizen of the 15 Republic of the Philippines.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-00361
Filed
March 2, 2021
Ended
July 26, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
146 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.