Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

English v. Rubio

Southern District of CaliforniaTodd W. RobinsonDecided September 19, 2025No. 3:25-cv-00563

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 February 6, 2024, Petitioner Romancheva appeared for a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, Poland.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On that day, she executed an application for a K- 1 visa, which was refused under INA § 221(g) on the grounds that she had failed to demonstrate her eligibility for the visa and that additional screening was required.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Respondents owe them a non-discretionary duty to complete adjudication of their visa application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition as follows.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Respondents argue that the Petition should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Respondents Marco Rubio, Krisi Noem, Kika Scott, and Connie Nolan’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition as follows.
Months pending 13.1 months from the application to the suit; 19.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 6, 2024, Petitioner Romancheva appeared for a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. (Id. at 7.) On that day, she executed an application for a K- 1 visa
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
A delay of this length was found to favor the defendants in Morales, 2024 WL 2884554 at *3, and similarly favors Respondents here.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor weighs in favor of Respondents.
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Because the agency has not yet made a final decision on Petitioners’ visa application, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00563
Filed
March 10, 2025
Ended
September 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
193 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.