Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Akbar v. Blinken

Southern District of CaliforniaLinda LopezDecided December 18, 2023No. 3:23-cv-01054

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
On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff Mohammadreza Akbar was interviewed by the consular section of the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On September 23, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted Form DS-260 to the NVC along with supporting documentation and the processing fee.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
On June 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff Mohammadreza Akbar’s visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state that Defendant has unreasonably delayed adjudication of Plaintiff Mohammadreza Akbar’s visa application under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant Antony J. Blinken's (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Atieh Akbar and Mohammadreza Akbar’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Complaint.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 32.4 months from the application to the suit; 38.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 23, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted Form DS-260 to the NVC along with supporting documentation and the processing fee.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohammadreza Akbar is an Iranian national and currently lives in Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Atieh Akbar, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on behalf of her father, Plaintiff Mohammadreza Akbar.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-01054
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
June 6, 2023
Ended
February 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
248 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-02-06; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. 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.