Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Iqbal v. Blinken

Eastern District of CaliforniaKimberly Jo MuellerDecided September 18, 2025No. 2:23-cv-01299

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
They alleged in this case, among other things, that the Secretary of State and others within the State Department were unreasonably delaying a final decision on their visa applications, and they sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The plaintiffs are three U.S. citizens and their respective spouses, who each previously applied for immigrant visas to enter the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They alleged in this case, among other things, that the Secretary of State and others within the State Department were unreasonably delaying a final decision on their visa applications, and they sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
Plaintiffs request an award of their fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Plaintiffs request an award of their fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs request an award of their fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
Plaintiffs request an award of their fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs request an award of their fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
The court thus denies the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (ECF No. 75).
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The court thus denies the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (ECF No. 75).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
The plaintiffs are three U.S. citizens and their respective spouses, who each previously applied for immigrant visas to enter the United States.

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
Iqbal v. Blinken November 9, 2023 Kimberly J. Mueller Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Iqbal v. BlinkenThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 18, 2025 Kimberly Jo Mueller Attorney's fees

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01299
Filed
June 30, 2023
Ended
July 2, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
733 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.