Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Malihe Kiani v. USCIS

Central District of CaliforniaJohn D. EarlyDecided December 5, 2024No. 8:24-cv-00422

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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS prioritizes the adjudication of I-130 petitions based on when the Visa Bulletin shows an immigrant visa is available or will soon become available.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
On December 10, 2012, USCIS received Plaintiff’s I-130 petition with supporting documentation.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs initiated this action for an order directing USCIS to adjudicate the Petition
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
USCIS moves for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute of material fact that USCIS’s delay in processing the Petition was not unreasonable, entitling it to judgment as a matter of law.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS moves for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute of material fact that USCIS’s delay in processing the Petition was not unreasonable, entitling it to judgment as a matter of law.
Disposition Granted in the government'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
As such, the Motion (Dkt. 38) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Judgment shall be entered in favor of USCIS and directing that this action be closed.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
USCIS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as the delay in processing the Petition here is not unreasonable. As such, the Motion (Dkt. 38) is GRANTED.
Months pending 134.8 months from the application to the suit; 143.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 10, 2012, USCIS received Plaintiff’s I-130 petition with supporting documentation.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonneutral
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Factors one and two are neutral here.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing found neutral; Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability found neutral Read by a model
The Court finds here, in the absence of a congressionally mandated process or timeframe, UCSIC’s processing system is rational, but, considering the delay here of nearly 12 years, that finding is not itself determinative. Factors one and two are neutral here.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Petition was on behalf of her married son, Beneficiary, an Iranian national.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
The Petition was placed in category F3.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-00422
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 45)
Filed
February 29, 2024
Ended
December 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
280 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.