Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Maadarani v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaSean C. RiordanDecided October 30, 2024No. 2:24-cv-01325

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
On June 26, 2023, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon interviewed Mr. Moussawi.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s spouse applied for a visa that would allow him to immigrate to the United States from Lebanon and be reunited with Plaintiff and their young child.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff is asking that Defendants complete adjudication of her spouse’s visa application, which allegedly has not been completed.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be DENIED and motion for summary judgment (id.) be DENIED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be DENIED and motion for summary judgment (id.) be DENIED without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be DENIED and motion for summary judgment (id.) be DENIED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be DENIED and motion for summary judgment (id.) be DENIED without prejudice.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be DENIED and motion for summary judgment (id.) be DENIED without prejudice.
Months pending 10.4 months from the application to the suit; 16.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 26, 2023, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon interviewed Mr. Moussawi.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not apply.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Because this case involves a U.S. citizen petitioner and a spouse beneficiary abroad, the Court describes the process for an “immediate relative” abroad.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
(PS) Maadarani v. MayorkasThis decision October 30, 2024 Sean C. Riordan Magistrate judge's recommendation
(PS) Maadarani v. Mayorkas October 31, 2024 Sean C. Riordan Magistrate judge's recommendation
(PS) Maadarani v. MayorkasThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 24, 2025 Sean C. Riordan Magistrate judge's recommendation

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01325
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 2), the motion (ECF 14) and the motion (ECF 15)
Filed
May 9, 2024
Ended
October 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
536 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2025-10-27 says the agency acted (moot); 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.