Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Najafi v. Pompeo

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided October 23, 2019No. 4:19-cv-05782

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

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 “is due to State officials unlawfully usurping the consular officers’ discretion to grant or deny Proclamation waivers,”
Form or filing	None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model alleging that Defendants were improperly withholding adjudications of case-by-case waivers under Presidential Proclamation 9645
Kind of order	A discovery or record order Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery.
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery.
Disposition	Discovery or record order An order on discovery or the administrative record. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model These are factual questions that are not appropriately decided at this juncture.
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery.
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

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 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.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Najafi v. PompeoThis decision	October 23, 2019	Kandis A. Westmore	Discovery or record order
Najafi v. Pompeo	December 5, 2019	Kandis A. Westmore	Denied in the government's favor
Najafi v. PompeoThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	March 5, 2020	Kandis A. Westmore	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:19-cv-05782
Filed: September 15, 2019
Ended: February 17, 2021
Suit's filing to its end: 521 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094

Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2018. The APA provides no avenue for review of a consular visa refusal beyond Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide inquiry, and consular nonreviewability is not a jurisdictional bar.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State, No. 23-4205 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

Ninth Circuit, April 30, 2026. After Muñoz, a citizen spouse's own First Amendment interest triggered Mandel review, which a facially legitimate and bona fide reason satisfied absent a showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-18; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.