Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Jamalinia v. Blinken

Eastern District of CaliforniaJeremy D. PetersonDecided March 7, 2025No. 2:24-cv-00981

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
against Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of State, and Robert Jachim, in his 19 official capacity as Acting Director of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination , for unreasonably 20 delaying adjudication of plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
submitted a DS-260 9 immigrant visa application with NVC on March 6, 2023
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The first seeks a writ of mandamus to 17 compel defendants to act upon plaintiffs’ visa application within a reasonable time pursuant to 18 INA and federal regulations.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the 3 alternative, for summary judgment under to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the 3 alternative, for summary judgment under to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Judgment is entered in defendants’ favor.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
After considering the TRAC factors, the court finds that plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay
Months pending 12.9 months from the application to the suit; 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
submitted a DS-260 9 immigrant visa application with NVC on March 6, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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
Thefirst factor thus weighs in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor favors the defendants; plaintiffs are not alone in their circumstances, and ordering 8 defendants to prioritize their application only further delays the resolution of other applications.
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 that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not bar 2 plaintiffs’ claims.
Nationality Netherlands Read by a model
Plaintiffs live in Sacramento, California and hold dual nationality of the Netherlands and 5 Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00981
Filed
April 1, 2024
Ended
March 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
340 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.