Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Najafi v. Pompeo

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided March 5, 2020No. 4:19-cv-05782

Read the decisionOriginal 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
Plaintiffs are individuals who a consular officer has proposed a waiver for, or whose eligibility for a waiver is being reviewed.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Beneficiary Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirements to obtain family-based or fiancée-based visas, but their applications have been denied pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 (“PP 9645”).
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
(1) an Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim based on Defendants’ failure to adjudicate waivers within a reasonable time;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may file a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending 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 APA claim based on unreasonable delay and Beneficiary Petitioners’ due process claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The APA claim based on unreasonable delay and Beneficiary Petitioners’ due process claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The APA claim based on unreasonable delay and Beneficiary Petitioners’ due process claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
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
Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”).
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
Beneficiary Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirements to obtain family-based or fiancée-based visas, but their applications have been denied pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 (“PP 9645”).

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Najafi v. Pompeo 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. PompeoThis decisionThe 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.