Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Tabatabaeifar v. Scott

District of ArizonaG. Murray SnowDecided May 1, 2025No. 2:25-cv-01238

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 DHS Read by a model
Under these circumstances, DHS officials have no discretion whether to refer Petitioner for a credible fear determination once she expressed a fear of returning to Iran and, likewise, have no discretion to deny an immigration judge’s review of her CAT determination.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
(1) Failure of Respondents to send Petitioner’s case to immigration court in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.30;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is granted.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is granted.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Fatemeh Tabatabaeifar’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (Doc. 8).
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is granted.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Respondents are enjoined from removing Petitioner from her current location in Eloy, Arizona, for 14 days pending further briefing by the parties and the Court’s consideration of Petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Petitioner is a citizen of Iran.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Tabatabaeifar v. ScottThis decision May 1, 2025 G. Murray Snow Granted in the applicant's favor
Tabatabaeifar v. ScottThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 14, 2025 G. Murray Snow Granted in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01238
Filed
April 14, 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.