Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Shao v. United States Department of State et al

Northern District of CaliforniaNathanael M. CousinsDecided July 7, 2026No. 5:26-cv-01434

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 Plaintiff Qing Shao’s Complaint brings two causes of action against Defendants United States Department of State, U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China, and Marco Rubio arising from Defendants’ alleged delay and failure to act on her visa application.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model Plaintiff is the beneficiary of an approved H-1B non-immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her visa application has been under administrative processing beyond a reasonable time period in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Kind of order	A transfer order Read by a model Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ alternative motion to transfer and TRANSFERS this action to the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ alternative motion to transfer and TRANSFERS this action to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court also DENIES Defendants’ 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ alternative motion to transfer and TRANSFERS this action to the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Disposition	Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ alternative motion to transfer and TRANSFERS this action to the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ alternative motion to transfer and TRANSFERS this action to the District Court for the District of Columbia.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model Because transfer is granted, the Court does not reach the question of whether Plaintiff fails to state a claim and DENIES Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as moot.
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model Because transfer is granted, the Court does not reach the question of whether Plaintiff fails to state a claim and DENIES Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as moot.
Months pending	6.2 months from the application to the suit; 10.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff subsequently attended her visa interview on or around August 15, 2025, and Defendants placed her case under administrative processing.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	China Read by a model According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff is a citizen of China and currently resides in Beijing, China.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:26-cv-01434
Filed: February 19, 2026
Ended: July 7, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 138 days
How it ended: Transferred
From the record: transfer order 2026-07-07

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094

Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2018. The APA provides no avenue for review of a consular visa refusal beyond Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide inquiry, and consular nonreviewability is not a jurisdictional bar.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State, No. 23-4205 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

Ninth Circuit, April 30, 2026. After Muñoz, a citizen spouse's own First Amendment interest triggered Mandel review, which a facially legitimate and bona fide reason satisfied absent a showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-18; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.