Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Pars Equality Center v. Blinken

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan Yvonne IllstonDecided November 5, 2024No. 3:24-cv-00001

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
The consular officers also requested that beneficiary plaintiffs complete and submit the DS-5535, which they all promptly did.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
All beneficiary plaintiffs here submitted their Form DS-260 and those DS-260 applications were found by NVC to be “Documentarily Qualified” or “Documentarily Complete.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
a writ of mandamus and order compelling defendants to complete all steps necessary to adjudicate beneficiary plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, within thirty days of the date of the court order;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
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 DENIES the motion to dismiss Counts Two through Five. Counts Two through Five shall proceed as to plaintiffs Fahimeh Jafarali Jasbi and Abbas Jafar Ali Jassebi.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Counts Two through Five. Counts Two through Five shall proceed as to plaintiffs Fahimeh Jafarali Jasbi and Abbas Jafar Ali Jassebi.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Counts Two through Five. Counts Two through Five shall proceed as to plaintiffs Fahimeh Jafarali Jasbi and Abbas Jafar Ali Jassebi.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Count One, with prejudice.
Months pending 9.2 months from the application to the suit; 19.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
It appears from the exhibit attached to the Peterson Declaration, Dkt. No. 11-1, that the complaint’s reference to plaintiff Abbas Jafar Ali Jassebi’s March 27, 2022 interview date (Compl. ¶ 45) was an error, and that the interview took place on March 27, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The Court rejects this argument for the same reasons as stated above.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
twenty-four of their respective Iranian spouses, children, parents, and/or siblings (“beneficiary plaintiffs”)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00001
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 33), deciding the motion (ECF 10)
Filed
January 1, 2024
Ended
February 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
420 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is 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.