Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Infracost Inc v. Blinken

Southern District of CaliforniaJanis L. SammartinoDecided April 30, 2024No. 3:23-cv-02226

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
Either at the interview or shortly thereafter, the Department of State (“Department”) placed Hosseini’s case in “administrative processing” and requested additional information from Hosseini.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Hosseini, Infracost’s co-founder and chief executive officer (“CEO”), seeks a O-1A nonimmigrant visa1 that would allow him to work and reside within the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs commenced this action approximately nine months after the interview, seeking to compel Defendant—sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department—to issue a final decision on Hosseini’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The instant Motion— seeking to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)— followed.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 4) filed by Defendant Antony Blinken.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and Plaintiffs’ claim under the Mandamus Act.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Given Plaintiffs’ failure to defend claims other than those sounding in unreasonable delay, the Court deems abandoned any potential claim under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)
Months pending 16.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) approved the petition on December 8, 2022, and Hosseini filed his visa application with the United States Embassy in London ten days later.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
the first TRAC factor weighs strongly in Defendant’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would both infringe on Defendant’s ability to prioritize Department resources and affect the processing of other applicants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-02226
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 10), deciding the motion (ECF 4)
Filed
December 5, 2023
Ended
April 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
147 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-04-30 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.