Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Lashkari v. Rubio

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided October 21, 2026No. 4:25-cv-10278

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 Department of State Read by a model
On June 7, 2025, the State Department announced a “No Visa Policy,” which suspended both entry for and visa issuance to nationals of those countries.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On January 28, 2026, the embassy e-mailed a “refusal letter” to Plaintiff P. Lashkari, informing him that A. Lashkari had been found “ineligible for an immigrant visa under Section 212(f)” pursuant to the Presidential Proclamations.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
(6) the unreasonable delay of adjudication of the immigrant visa is in violation of the APA, and (7) the failure to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ visa application is in violation of the Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s first and fourth through seventh claims, as well as the second and third claims with prejudice to the extent they are based on the individualized decision on Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s visa application.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s first and fourth through seventh claims, as well as the second and third claims with prejudice to the extent they are based on the individualized decision on Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s visa application.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s first and fourth through seventh claims, as well as the second and third claims with prejudice to the extent they are based on the individualized decision on Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s visa application.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s first and fourth through seventh claims, as well as the second and third claims with prejudice to the extent they are based on the individualized decision on Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s visa application.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the suit; 23.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
After the petitions were approved, Plaintiff A. Lashkari and his wife were interviewed by a consular officer on October 31, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that to the extent Plaintiff brings claims that challenge the decision on Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s application, such claims must be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff P. Lashkari is a United States citizen who filed Form I-130 petitions on behalf of his parents, who are Iranian citizens.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
On December 16, 2025, Defendant Trump issued Proclamation 10998, which expanded Proclamation 10949’s entry ban and removed exemptions, including for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff P. Lashkari is a United States citizen who filed Form I-130 petitions on behalf of his parents, who are Iranian citizens.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Lashkari v. Rubio June 5, 2026 Kandis A. Westmore Denied in the applicant's favor
Lashkari v. RubioThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 21, 2026 Kandis A. Westmore Dismissed in part; some claims go on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-10278
Filed
November 26, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.