Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Khalili-Araghi v. Bitter

Northern District of CaliforniaLaurel BeelerDecided September 13, 2023No. 3:23-cv-00696

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
In sum, the State Department does not have a nondiscretionary duty to act on an immigrant visa petition as opposed to an immigrant visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
To apply for an immigrant visa, she must “personally appear[] before a consular officer.”
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The exact issue is thus whether the defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to allow those who have filed an immigrant visa petition and been deemed documentarily qualified to apply for an immigrant visa via a consular interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they have no duty to schedule Ms. Iran Nejad’s interview, and if even they did have that duty, their delay has not been unreasonable.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they have no duty to schedule Ms. Iran Nejad’s interview, and if even they did have that duty, their delay has not been unreasonable.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
The court grants the motion on both grounds.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on their lack of a nondiscretionary duty to schedule Ms. Iran Nejad’s interview.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on their lack of a nondiscretionary duty to schedule Ms. Iran Nejad’s interview.
Months pending 123 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 13, 2013, after Ms. Iran Nejad was denied a visitor visa, the plaintiff filed a visa petition (for a green card) for Ms. Iran Nejad with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
But the other factors weigh heavily in favor of the defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
And “as many courts have acknowledged,” allowing one applicant “to ‘jump the queue’” in this context “would be unjust.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
The plaintiff seeks an immigrant visa for an “immediate relative,” her daughter.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-00696
Filed
February 16, 2023
Ended
September 13, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
209 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.