Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Network Optix Inc. v. Marco Rubio

Central District of CaliforniaSteve KimDecided February 14, 2025No. 2:24-cv-06505

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
As a result, plaintiffs sued here in August 2024 under the APA, claiming that the State Department has either unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudication of Iuldashev’s H-1B visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Iuldashev’s H-1B visa application
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
plaintiffs sue under § 706(1) to claim that a merits adjudication of the visa application remains unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed no matter how the Secretary characterizes the relevant agency action.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Secretary’s motion to dismiss (ECF 14) is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For his part, Secretary Rubio moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For his part, Secretary Rubio moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Secretary’s motion to dismiss (ECF 14) is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Secretary is ordered to answer the complaint within 14 days of this order.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Secretary’s motion to dismiss (ECF 14) is denied.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Secretary’s motion to dismiss (ECF 14) is denied.
Months pending 6 months from the application to the suit; 12 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
An official at the embassy interviewed Iuldashev in February 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
But even under an early TRAC analysis, plaintiffs have at least plausibly alleged that they will be prejudiced by further inaction or indefinite delay in the final adjudication of Iuldashev’s visa application.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Thus, consular nonreviewability never enters the picture when, as here, plaintiffs are not challenging a consular official’s ultimate discretionary decision to grant or deny a visa application on the merits, but his failure to make that decision—at all or within a reasonable time.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Iuldashev, a Russian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-06505
Filed
August 1, 2024
Ended
May 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
278 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2025-05-06; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.