Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Soltani Bozchalooi v. US Dept. of State

Eastern District of CaliforniaDaniel J. CalabrettaDecided April 17, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02983

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
do[] not seek to have the Court determine the merits of Plaintiff’s applications, but only to compel the State Department to follow its statutory and regulatory mandate to process their applications to completion, either to a denial with reasons of denial or an issuance of a visa.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Oskoui submitted her completed DS-260 on October 7, 2023.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
But the Court’s analysis is focused on the delay at issue here, which is the post-interview delay while the visa application remains in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
In accordance with the above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal and Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal and Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move for dismissal or, in the alternative, summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa application.
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 for Dismissal and Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ APA claim for unreasonable delay.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Thus, even if Plaintiffs did bring a due process claim, the Court would grant summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.
Months pending 30.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Oskoui submitted her completed DS-260 on October 7, 2023.
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 neededneutral
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
Granting relief and ordering Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff Oskoui’s application would necessarily push others further back in the process.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are thus not barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Mahvash Oskoui is a national and resident of Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Iman Solanti Bozchalooi is a United States citizen. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 4.) Plaintiff Mahvash Oskoui is a national and resident of Iran. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff Oskoui is Plaintiff Bozchalooi’s biological mother. (Id. ¶ 4.)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02983
Filed
October 15, 2025
Ended
April 17, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
184 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.