Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Sedigheh Meraji v. Donald J Trump

Central District of CaliforniaFernando Manzano OlguinDecided September 22, 2026No. 2:25-cv-08886

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 Department of State Read by a model
On June 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) implemented a “No Visa Policy” which fully or partially suspended the issuance of visas to individuals subject to PP 10949 who were otherwise eligible for visas.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
defendants are unlawfully withholding final adjudication of plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications (Counts Four through Six).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief to compel defendants to adjudicate their applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court begins with the principle that “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s (collectively, “defendants”) Motion to Dismiss
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Counts Four, Five, and Six are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling those claims in separate actions in the appropriate venues.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The FAC is dismissed with leave to amend as to Counts One, Two, and Three. Counts Four, Five, and Six are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling those claims in separate actions in the appropriate venues.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Counts Four, Five, and Six are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling those claims in separate actions in the appropriate venues.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The FAC is dismissed with leave to amend as to Counts One, Two, and Three.
Months pending 50.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
plaintiff Azardokht Meraji’s visa application was refused after a 2022 interview
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
[b]ecause Plaintiffs challenge the delay in processing Plaintiffs’ visa application and not a substantive, final decision, the consular nonreviewability doctrine is inapplicable here[.]
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that, in addition to § 221(g) refusals for administrative processing, some plaintiffs received refusals pursuant to § 212(f) following the issuance of PP10949.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-08886
Filed
September 18, 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.