Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Key v. Palmer

Eastern District of CaliforniaAllison ClaireDecided September 25, 2024No. 2:24-cv-01563

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
The U.S Embassy in the 5 United Kingdom responded that the visa application was still undergoing administrative 6 processing, and that there is no timeline that can be given for completion of their review.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
the beneficiary may submit a DS-260 Online Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration 7 Application to begin the visa application process.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendants to act on and adjudicate her 23 husband’s I-130 visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the motion is 20 GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal, and this case is dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
On August 1, 2024, defendants moved to 19 dismiss or for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On August 1, 2024, defendants moved to 19 dismiss or for summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, and without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, and without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is 23 || GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, and without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
neither may state a due process claim associated with any 4 | delay in processing plaintiff's spouse’s visa application. The motion to dismiss will be granted.
Months pending 11.6 months from the application to the suit; 15.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that in June 2023, her husband, Oskar Siwierski, was interviewed 22 for the first time at the U.S. Embassy in the United Kingdom in connection with the case.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This factor weighs strongly in 23 favor of dismissal.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor favors the defendants; plaintiff and her husband are not alone in their circumstances, 14 and ordering defendants to prioritize their application only further delays the resolution of other 15 applications.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Under the circumstances present in this case, absent binding authority to the contrary, the 14 undersigned finds that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar plaintiff’s claims.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01563
Filed
June 3, 2024
Ended
September 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
114 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.

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.