Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Tikhonova v. U.S. Department of State

Northern District of CaliforniaHaywood S Gilliam, JrDecided August 9, 2023No. 4:22-cv-06034

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 State Department therefore may determine where it will accept visa applications.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff and her mother then submitted the required Form DS-260 in November 2021.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiff specifically requests an order compelling Defendants to schedule her mother’s visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia rather than in Warsaw, Poland.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff is challenging Defendants’ discretionary authority.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
Months pending 20.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff and her mother then submitted the required Form DS-260 in November 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Her mother, Liubov Tikhonova, is the beneficiary in this case and is a citizen and resident of Russia.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiff Olga Tikhonova is a U.S. citizen. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶ 3. Her mother, Liubov Tikhonova, is the beneficiary in this case and is a citizen and resident of Russia.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:22-cv-06034
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 12)
Filed
October 13, 2022
Ended
January 18, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
462 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-01-18; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.