Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Assadian v. Oudkirk

Southern District of CaliforniaRuth Bermudez MontenegroDecided September 25, 2023No. 3:22-cv-00921

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
Her parents were interviewed in April 2022 by the U.S. Embassy in Turkey, and 8 during the interview a consular officer examined and reviewed their applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
submitting a Form DS-260 Immigrant Visa Application (application)
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff relies on the same 20 regulation and statutes to attempt to establish Defendan ts’ duty to issue a final decision on 21 the visa applications under the APA and Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without 15 prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged claims under the APA or the Mandamus 12 Act, these claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a 23 Motion to Dismiss that has been fully briefed.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without 15 prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without 15 prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged claims under the APA or the Mandamus 12 Act, these claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 2.6 months from the application to the suit; 17.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff’s parents had their required 4 interviews with a consular officer on April 6, 2022.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The delay here has been only eleven weeks. Eleven weeks is not unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
ordering the agency to issue a final decision in two 24 weeks would necessarily put Plaintiff’s parents’ visa applications ahead of others. That is 25 certainly not warranted after such a brief delay.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
sought eligibility for her parents to 5 apply for IR- 5 visas as the parents of a United States citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-00921
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 7), deciding the motion (ECF 4)
Filed
June 23, 2022
Ended
September 25, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
459 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.