Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Almasi v. Rubio

Southern District of CaliforniaRuth Bermudez MontenegroDecided April 24, 2026No. 3:25-cv-02002

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
Thus, the State Department is “required by law to act on visa applications,” and Plaintiffs have demonstrated a clear, nondiscretionary duty.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
All Plaintiffs applied for immigrant visas using Form DS-260, Online Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating their immigrant visa applications and ask the Court to compel adjudication under (1) the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; (2) APA § 706(1); and (3) APA § 706(2).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants move to “drop plaintiffs and/or sever claims” and to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
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 as it relates to Almasi and Nourashrafeddin.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Almasi and Nourashrafeddin.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Almasi and Nourashrafeddin.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants have not discharged their mandatory duties to adjudicate Nourashrafeddin’s visa application.
Nationality Canada Read by a model
All 25 Plaintiffs, representing eight different families, are Canadian and Iranian citizens who have applied for immigrant visas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-02002
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 10), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
August 5, 2025
Ended
June 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
314 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-06-15; 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.