Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Dormanesh v. Rubio

Eastern District of CaliforniaJeremy D. PetersonDecided July 24, 2026No. 2:25-cv-03472

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
The U.S. embassy in Yerevan told plaintiff’s father: “Your administrative 14 processing has started and once it is complete you will be notified via email.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The 5 beneficiary may then begin the visa application process by submitting a DS-260 Online 6 Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Second, plaintiff asks the 19 court to compel the adjudication of his father’s visa application pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 20 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, 3 alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, 3 alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56.
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
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 24 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, ECF No. 6, be GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because plaintiff 21 does not have a fundamental right connected to his father’s visa application, he cannot state a due 22 process claim, and defendants’ motion should be granted as to this claim.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the suit; 20.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 7, 2024, 8 plaintiff’s father attended an interview in Yerevan, Armenia.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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 first 5 factor thus weighs in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor favors the defendants; plaintiff ’s family is not alone in their circumstances, 7 and ordering defendants to prioritize plaintiff’s father’s application only further delays the 8 resolution of other applications.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
I find that the doctrine of 5 consular nonreviewability does not bar plaintiff’s claims.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mohammad Dormanesh, who is an Iranian citizen living in Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff received approval for a Form I-130 on 6 behalf of his father, Mohammad Dormanesh, who is an Iranian citizen living in Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-03472
Filed
December 2, 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.