Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Masoumeh Sadeghi Mahonak v. Marco Rubio

Central District of CaliforniaFred W. SlaughterDecided February 10, 2025No. 8:24-cv-01443

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
Plaintiffs assert six claims stemming from this delay against Defendant 11 Marco Rubio, the Secretary of the United States Department of State
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Form DS- 260, and received notification that their Form DS-260 applications were
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Defendants to “ complete all steps 6 necessary to provide final adjudications of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications” 7 within thirty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion to Dismiss 8 and DENIES the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss all six claims under Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6). (See generally Dkt. 21.) Plaintiffs seek a 10 preliminary injunction
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendant Marco Rubio and Defendant 2 Robert Jachim’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to 3 Dismiss”), (Dkt. 21 ); and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
1. The court DISMISSES Counts One and Two WITH PREJUDICE. 11 2. The court DISMISSES Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six WITHOUT 12 LEAVE TO AMEND but WITHOUT PREJUDICE should later 13 circumstances demonstrate unreasonable delay.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because this Order dismisses all claims in this matter
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court DISMISSES Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six WITHOUT 12 LEAVE TO AMEND but WITHOUT PREJUDICE should later 13 circumstances demonstrate unreasonable delay.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The court DISMISSES Counts One and Two WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Plaintiff Mahonak has a concrete interest 2 in being reunited with her spouse, whose visa application remains in administrative 3 processing, and thus her claim is not moot.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs consist of forty Iranian national immigrant visa applicants

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-01443
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 51)
Filed
June 30, 2024
Ended
February 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
225 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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. 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.