Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Rezai v. Blinken

Southern District of CaliforniaCathy Ann BencivengoDecided November 18, 2024No. 3:24-cv-01016

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 7 Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan interviewed Plaintiffs Leila and Bahram 8 on Mar. 23, 2023.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
immigrant visa application
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
T heir 19 application remains in administrative processing without a post-refusal adjudication. 20 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to adjudicate 21 Plaintiffs’ application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained 26 further below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiffs have 15 failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and GRANTS Defendants’ 16 motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are DISMISSED 5 without leave to amend
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are DISMISSED 5 without leave to amend
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are DISMISSED 5 without leave to amend as no amendments to the Complaint would change the Court’s 6 conclusion.
Months pending 14.6 months from the application to the suit; 19.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan interviewed Plaintiffs Leila and Bahram 8 on Mar. 23, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 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
The Court finds that factors one and two weigh for 21 defendants
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court 13 declines to order Defendants to rearrange their processing priorities as Congress has 14 provided them with significant discretion.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Leila, 3 an Iranian national and resident.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Vila is a U.S. citizen who filed a Form I-130 for her sister Plaintiff Leila,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01016
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
June 10, 2024
Ended
November 19, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
162 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.