Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Razi v. Pompeo

Southern District of CaliforniaWilliam Q. HayesDecided October 23, 2020No. 3:20-cv-00982

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
It is unquestionable that Plaintiffs would rather that field “consular officers [were] free to adjudicate waivers” without a concurring or reviewing authority.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
For example, the first cause of action for unreasonable delay under 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) might be best stated in paragraph eighteen of the FAC: that the requirement for concurrence demonstrates a pattern and policy of waiver adjudication delays.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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
The motion to dismiss for unreasonable delay is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for unreasonable delay is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for unreasonable delay is GRANTED.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the unreasonable delay and due process claims and DENIED as to the substantive APA and mandamus claims.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Whether or not this process is being administered according to procedure is not precluded from review.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
their Iranian relatives (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”) who are visa applicants to the United States.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
Beneficiary Plaintiffs have completed the necessary steps of the visa application process to enter the United States but have been denied pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 (“PP 9645”).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-00982
Filed
May 27, 2020
Ended
March 10, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
287 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.