Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Raha Momeni v. Antony J. Blinken

Central District of CaliforniaOtis D. Wright, IIDecided December 13, 2024No. 2:24-cv-04879

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
Thus, “the State Department is ‘required by law to act 27 on visa applications.’” Aminzadeh, 2024 WL 3811153, at *4 (quoting Patel v. Reno, 28 134 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
and in 2019, Faraz, 7 Mozhgan, Tara, and Ali were permitted to and timely filed their DS-260 immigrant 8 visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
To date, Plaintiffs have not received a final decision on the 11 pending visa applications, and Faraz’s principal application (“Application”) remains 12 in an indefinite state of additional “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART AND 15 | DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 (“Rule”) 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,5 and 12(b)(6), for failure to 21 state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss 24 Plaintiffs’ Petition.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion as to unreasonable delay.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion as to unreasonable delay.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion as to unreasonable delay.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
According, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion in part and dismisses the APA § 706(2) claim.
Months pending 59.3 months from the application to the suit; 65.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
in 2019, Faraz, 7 Mozhgan, Tara, and Ali were permitted to and timely filed their DS-260 immigrant 8 visa applications.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion as to consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
her brother, Faraz Momeni, an Iranian national,
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
In 2007, Raha Momeni, a United States citizen, filed a family-based I-130 3 Petition for Alien Relative to sponsor her brother, Faraz Momeni, an Iranian national,

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Raha Momeni v. Antony J. BlinkenThis decision December 13, 2024 Otis D. Wright, II Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Raha Momeni v. Antony J. BlinkenThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 27, 2026 Otis D. Wright II Denied in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-04879
Filed
June 10, 2024
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.