Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Najafi v. Pompeo

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided December 5, 2019No. 4:19-cv-05782

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
Once an applicant is determined to be eligible for a visa, the consular officer then automatically considers the applicant for a waiver based on PP 9645’s three-part test.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Beneficiary Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirements to obtain family-based or fiancée-based visas
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
On September 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this motion for injunctive relief, seeking a mandatory injunction that Defendants adjudicate Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ waiver requests within fifteen days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
the Court TERMINATES the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss, taking into account this order.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Here, the Court cannot say that the time taken by Defendants thus far is unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As Defendants point out, there are also competing priorities including the need for national security vetting and the thousands of other waiver applicants in line.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Further, as Beneficiary Plaintiffs are still waiting for a decision by the consular officer, there is no decision to review and thus consular nonreviewability is not at issue.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”).
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
As of the filing of the complaint, Beneficiary Plaintiffs had waited an average of 501 days since their applications were refused pursuant to PP 9645.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 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
Najafi v. Pompeo October 23, 2019 Kandis A. Westmore Discovery or record order
Najafi v. PompeoThis decision December 5, 2019 Kandis A. Westmore Denied in the government's favor
Najafi v. PompeoThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 5, 2020 Kandis A. Westmore Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:19-cv-05782
Filed
September 15, 2019
Ended
February 17, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
521 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
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.

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.