Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Jawad Albu Amer v. Joshua Harris

Southern District of CaliforniaBenjamin J. CheeksDecided September 30, 2026No. 3:25-cv-03103

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
That same day, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq requested that Plaintiff’s 19 sons fill in the attachment with the additional required information.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s 21 sons’ “immigrant visa applications were executed when they appeared at their consular 22 interviews on November 26, 2024.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
A decade after USCIS approved Plaintiff’s sons’ visa petitions and nearly two years 5 after the visa applications were placed in administrative processing, Plaintiff seeks an order 6 compelling Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s sons’ visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
After consideration of the filed materials, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 23 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
Defendants filed this instant Motion, seeking to dismiss the 27 complaint in its entirety under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is 18 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 PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state an APA
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
and/or Mandamus claim becau se the delay in adjudicating Plaintiff's visa 2 applications is not unreasonable. Refiling may be appropriate should 3 future circumstances indicate unreasonable delay requiring judicial review. 4 The dismissal is, therefore, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a violation 6 of due process and dismisses the Third Cause of Action WITH PREJUDICE .
Months pending 11.5 months from the application to the suit; 22.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s sons were interviewed by the U.S. Embassy in 16 Iraq
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 prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Factors one and two, thus, strongly favor 28 Defendants because neither the length nor reason for the delay is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
For the same reasons stated in that Order, the Court declines to follow Karimova and finds 26 that Defendants have a mandatory duty to fully adjudicate visa applications under Section 27 555(b).
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
who currently reside in Iraq and are Iraqi nationals.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-03103
Filed
November 12, 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.