Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Kordi v. Blinken et al

District of ArizonaJacqueDecided March 25, 2026No. 4:25-cv-00659

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Shakiba Rajab Kordi, a U.S. citizen, filed the Complaint seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the State Department to adjudicate her father’s immigrant visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Shakiba Rajab Kordi, a U.S. citizen, filed the Complaint seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the State Department to adjudicate her father’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
order the U.S. Department of State and its officials to complete adjudication of [Plaintiff’s] father’s immigrant visa application within a set time frame.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant Antony Blinken’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant Antony Blinken’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, no live controversy remains in the immediate case, and the requested relief is moot.
Months pending 36.8 months from the application to the suit; 38.7 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The USCIS completed the requested adjudication on January 29, 2026.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
To the extent the Plaintiff may seek to challenge the outcome of USCIS’s adjudication of her father’s visa application, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such challenge due to the doctrine of nonreviewability.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10998 Read by a model
on January 29, 2026, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi refused Petitioner’s father’s visa application under INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10998.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Shakiba Rajab Kordi, a U.S. citizen, filed the Complaint seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the State Department to adjudicate her father’s immigrant visa application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-00659
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
December 1, 2025
Ended
April 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
148 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-04-28 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

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.