Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Shabnam Kayami v. Kristina Kvien

Southern District of CaliforniaBenjamin J. CheeksDecided September 29, 2026No. 3:25-cv-02205

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 February 6 26, 2024, Mr. Khayyami appeared for his scheduled immigrant visa interview with a 7 consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia to execute his immigrant visa 8 application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants cite to a recent opinion
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
seeking “an order
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to 27 dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The Court GRANTS 28 Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The dismissal is, therefore, WITHOUT 4 PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court GRANTS 28 Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The dismissal is, therefore, WITHOUT 4 PREJUDICE.
Months pending 18 months from the application to the suit; 31.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Mr. Khayyami’s visa application was refused at his initial consular interview on 6 February 26, 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 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
In sum, factors one and two weigh strongly in Defendants’ favor
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
An order compelling Defendants to adjudicate Mr. Khayyami’s 7 application to finality would put his application at the head of the line and presumably 8 delay thousands of other pending applications of individuals similarly-situated.
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants have a duty to reach a final 8 decision with respect to Plaintiffs’ visa application, which they have not done.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Bahman Khayyami, an Iranian national.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
involves an IR-5 immediate relative

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-02205
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
August 26, 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.

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.