Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Ali v. Ordeman

Eastern District of CaliforniaCarolyn K. DelaneyDecided May 20, 2024No. 2:23-cv-02822

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
Under the complaint’s allegations, administrative processing following a “refusal” under INA § 221(g) is a temporary measure signaling that processing is ongoing while the Department of State gathers additional information.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After the interview, Mr. Haq’s visa application was placed in administrative processing by a “refusal” under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), § 221(g) of the INA.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
As discussed above, the first and fourth TRAC factors weigh against granting plaintiff’s request for relief that defendants be ordered to process plaintiff’s husband’s visa application within 15 calendar days or as soon as possible.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In the alternative, defendants seek summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Judgment is entered in defendants’ favor.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Considering the TRAC factors, the court grants summary judgment to the defendants because the 9 or 14-month delay has not been unreasonable.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
The court grants summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s due process claim.
Months pending 8.7 months from the application to the suit; 14.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The visa application of plaintiff’s husband was “refused” under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), INA § 221(g), and placed into administrative processing following his consular interview on March 14, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors weigh in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
when a judicial order putting plaintiffs at the head of the line would simply move all others back one space and produce no net gain.”). The fourth TRAC factor weighs in favor of the defendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
the court finds the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar plaintiff’s claims.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Here, plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff filed Form I-130 for her husband, Shams Ul Haq, in May of 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-02822
Filed
December 5, 2023
Ended
May 20, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
167 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.