Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Mirbod v. Blinken

Southern District of CaliforniaCathy Ann BencivengoDecided February 6, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01430

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 Court finds that factors one and two 5 weigh for Defendants due to the significant deference provided to the State Department in 6 administering immigration visa applications and because such delays are not unreasonable 7 according to extensive case law.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek to compel 21 adjudication of the immigrant visa applications
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and 17 injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ 18 applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 26 GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 25 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 25 12(b)(6) of the Federal 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 20 || without leave to amend
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 26 GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and GRANTS Defendants’ 19 motion to dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim 17 || under Rule 12(b)(1).
Months pending 11.7 months from the application to the suit; 17.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
interviewed by a consular officer in the U.S. Embassy in 8 Yerevan, Armenia on August 21, 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 5 weigh for Defendants
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
granting plaintiffs’ request to expedite would necessarily 2 mean additional delays for other applicants—many of whom undoubtedly face hardships 3 of their own.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Maryam, an Iranian national and resident, and Morvarid, an Iranian national and Canadian 4 resident.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff Marjan is a U.S. citizen who filed a Form I-130 for her sisters—Plaintiffs

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-01430
Filed
August 12, 2024
Ended
February 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
178 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.