Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Ghias v. Rubio

Southern District of CaliforniaCathy Ann BencivengoDecided May 11, 2026No. 3:25-cv-03733

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
Azeem’s wife and children were granted immigrant visas to travel to the Untied States, but the consular officer refused Azeem’s application pursuant to § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and placed it into administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On February 22, 2022, Azeem submitted his Form DS-260, Immigration Visa and Alien Registration Application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek to compel adjudication of Abdul Azeem’s immigrant visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained further below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons explained further below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ action against Defendants is DISMISSED without leave to amend as no amendments to the complaint would change the Court’s conclusion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 46 months from the application to the suit; 50.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 22, 2022, Azeem submitted his Form DS-260, Immigration Visa and Alien Registration Application.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 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
The Court finds that factors one and two weigh for Defendants due to the significant deference provided to the State Department in administering immigration visa applications and because an eighteen-month delay is not unreasonable according to extensive caselaw.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
[p]rocessing capacity is presently a zero-sum game [and] granting plaintiffs’ request to expedite would necessarily mean additional delays for other applicants—many of whom undoubtedly face hardships of their own.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The Court disagrees. Where the government “has not yet made a final reconsideration decision and the petition remains in administrative processing, subject matter jurisdiction is present.”
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Azeem, also a Pakistani citizen and resident, is a derivative beneficiary of the I-130 Petition.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Humaira Ghias (“Ghias”) is a U.S. citizen who filed a Form I-130, or Petition for Alien Relative, for her sibling Azra Azeem, a Pakistani citizen and resident and the wife of Plaintiff Abdul Azeem (“Azeem”).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-03733
Filed
December 23, 2025
Ended
May 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
139 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.