Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Zafarmand v. Pompeo

Northern District of CaliforniaMaxine M. ChesneyDecided December 9, 2020No. 3:20-cv-00803

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
with the ultimate waiver determination resting with the consular officer
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that although they “fulfilled all requirements to obtain family-based visas,” their visa applications were “eventually refused pursuant to PP 9645,”
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
By the instant action, plaintiffs challenge defendants’ “withholding of adjudications of case-by-case waivers of Presidential Proclamation 9645
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the FAC is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion, filed September 17, 2020, “to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion, filed September 17, 2020, “to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the FAC is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the FAC is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief, and, given plaintiffs’ failure to cure the previously identified deficiencies therein, such dismissal will be without further leave to amend.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
In light of the foregoing, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief, and, given plaintiffs’ failure to cure the previously identified deficiencies therein, such dismissal will be without further leave to amend.
Months pending 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, plaintiffs have waited, even as of the date of this order, less than three years.
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
their Iranian siblings or parents (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”) and (3) other Iranian relatives (“Derivative Plaintiffs”).
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
their visa applications were “eventually refused pursuant to PP 9645,”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-00803
Filed
February 3, 2020
Ended
December 10, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
311 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.