Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Lashkari v. Rubio

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided June 5, 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
After the petitions were approved, Plaintiff A. Lashkari and his wife were interviewed by a consular officer at the Abu Dhabi Embassy on October 31, 2024.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Your visa application is refused under section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) for the reasons stated below.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Such is the case here as to the § 221(g) refusal of Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s application. Here, the complaint does not challenge a final decision, but asserts that Defendants have “unreasonably delayed a final decision on [Plaintiff A. Lashkari’s] eligibility to immigrate to the United States.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES 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
Here, Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that: (1) the consular nonreviewability doctrine precludes judicial review of Plaintiffs’ claims, and (2) Plaintiffs cannot identify a discrete agency action that Defendants are required to take, i.e., a mandatory duty.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that denial of the motion to dismiss is appropriate based on the facts that have been pled in the complaint, namely the § 221(g) refusal.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the suit; 19.1 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 at the Abu Dhabi Embassy on October 31, 2024.
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
Thus, the Court finds that the consular nonreviewability doctrine does not apply to the § 221(g) refusal because it is not a final decision.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10998 Read by a model
On April 2, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an opposition, which acknowledged that Plaintiffs had received a refusal under § 212(f) on January 28, 2026 pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10998.
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 father, Plaintiff A. Lashkari, and his mother.

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Lashkari v. RubioThis decision June 5, 2026 Kandis A. Westmore Denied in the applicant's favor
Lashkari v. RubioThe 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.