Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Najibullah Hamidi v. Natalie A. Baker

Southern District of CaliforniaBarry Ted MoskowitzDecided August 18, 2026No. 3:25-cv-01992

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
NATALIE A. BAKER, Chargé d’Affaires, U.S. Embassy in Pakistan; and MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, Defendants.
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
Hamidi filed a Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Hamidi’s Complaint was filed on August 4, 2025 and asks this Court to compel the Defendants to process his wife’s I-730 application within fifteen calendar days or as soon as reasonably possible.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Hamidi’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the case is moot because the Defendants have already completed their processing of Hamidi’s wife’s application and there is no longer any relief for the Court to grant.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently before the Court is the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court finds that Hamidi’s Complaint is moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court finds that Hamidi’s Complaint is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court finds that Hamidi’s Complaint is moot.
Months pending 23.7 months from the application to the suit; 24.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
August 22, 2025, the Defendants issued a decision letter informing Hamidi’s wife of its determination that she is ineligible for travel to the United States under INA § 212(f).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court finds that Hamidi’s Complaint is moot.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
In his Opposition, Hamidi contends that the Defendants have impermissibly denied his wife’s application under INA § 212(f) because the decision was based on the allegedly unlawful Presidential Proclamation 10949.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-01992
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
August 4, 2025
Ended
August 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
379 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.