Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Davila v. Cohan

Southern District of CaliforniaJanis L. SammartinoDecided February 21, 2024No. 3:23-cv-01532

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
Plaintiff commenced the instant action approximately four months later, seeking to 20 compel Defendants—sued in their official capacity as consular officers and officers of the 21 United States Department of State—to issue a final decision on her husband’s appli cation.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After the interview, consular 17 officers informed Plaintiff’s husband that his application had been placed in administrative 18 processing so that consulate officers could “gather additional information.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff commenced the instant action approximately four months later, seeking to 20 compel Defendants—sued in their official capacity as consular officers and officers of the 21 United States Department of State—to issue a final decision on her husband’s appli cation.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Court will thus proceed to evaluate whether Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief 3 under the APA pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 4) filed by 19 Defendants Eric S. Cohan, Stephanie Syptak -Ramnath, and Antony Blinken
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims 12 under the APA and Mandamus Act.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 17 (ECF No. 4).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims 12 under the APA and Mandamus Act.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Months pending 10.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
then submitted a visa application and, in April 2023, completed an interview
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 25 Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court thus concludes that prioritizing the administrative processing 6 of the application of Plaintiff’s spouse would merely bump Plaintiff up in the queue of 7 other applicants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff—a United States citizen—filed 3 an I-130 visa petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service 4 (“USCIS”) on behalf of her husband in February 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-01532
Filed
August 21, 2023
Ended
February 21, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
184 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-02-28; 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.

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.