Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Ghahraloud v. United States Department of State

Eastern District of CaliforniaBarbara A. McAuliffeDecided September 11, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00466

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
On June 18, 2025, the State Department issued a final adjudication of Plaintiff’s application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s visa application was refused that same day under section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff’s request that the court order Defendants to immediately adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending immigrant visa application (ECF No. 1) be DENIED as moot;
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Because it is jurisdictional, mootness can be raised through a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint be GRANTED with leave to file a supplemental complaint;
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 assigned to the case
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s request that the court order Defendants to immediately adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending immigrant visa application (ECF No. 1) be DENIED as moot;
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Nevertheless, the court is reluctant to foreclose Plaintiff from raising supplemental claims in response to the government’s post-complaint adjudication given the liberality of Rule 15(d).
Months pending 30 months from the application to the suit; 31.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On June 18, 2025, the State Department issued a final adjudication of Plaintiff’s application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails); Held moot Read by a model
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s dual avenues for relief—the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C § 1361—cannot coexist here.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff is an Iranian citizen.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
(listing misapplication of Presidential Proclamation 10949, failure to apply the exemption to Plaintiff as the spouse of a United States citizen, and internal inconsistency).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00466
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 36)
Filed
April 23, 2025
Ended
December 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
231 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.