Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Abbassi v. Gaudiosi

Eastern District of CaliforniaChristopher D. BakerDecided May 6, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01573

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
As alleged in the complaint, a “refusal” under INA §221(g) places an application into a 11 status called “administrative processing ,” a temporary measure which signals the applicant that 12 process is ongoing while the Department of State continues to gather information.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s action seeks to compel Defendants to act on and adjudi cate her fiancé’s filed 17 I-129F visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
As Plaintiff argues in her opposition, she merely is asking Defendants to complete 3 adjudication of the visa within a reasonable time as required by law.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 9) is 24 GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 9) is 24 GRANTED;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative for 19 summary judgment, filed January 12, 2024.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim and Mandamus Act claim are DISMISSED without leave to 26 amend, without prejudice to be refiled no earlier than June 2026 should later 27 circumstances demonstrate an unreasonable delay
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 9) is 24 GRANTED;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim and Mandamus Act claim are DISMISSED without leave to 26 amend, without prejudice to be refiled no earlier than June 2026
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend, with prejudice.
Months pending 26.7 months from the application to the suit; 32.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
According to her allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff properly filed her visa application 4 on August 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
In sum, TRAC factors one and four strongly favor Defendants, whereas the remaining 22 factors are neutral.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff does not provide a compelling justification as to why she should skip ahead of other 8 similarly situated petitioners who have not sued, thus the Court finds the fourth factor weighs in 9 favor of Defendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
finding that the doctrine does not bar 26 review of an as-yet final adjudication of a visa application in administrative processing.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01573
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
November 7, 2023
Ended
June 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
223 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.

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.