Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Robindeep Singh v. United States Department of State

Central District of CaliforniaOtis D. Wright, IIDecided August 15, 2022No. 2:21-cv-07142

Read the decision Original 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 On November 30, 2021, the Embassy notified Urmila that the visa application was still under administrative review.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model We informed you that your application might be reinstated if, within one year, you could establish that your failure to pursue your immigrant visa application was due to circumstances beyond your control.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model seeking a writ of mandamus due to the failure to decide the visa application in a reasonable time.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ FAC for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 20), and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint without leave to amend
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ FAC for failure to state a claim.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model Urmila does not have a cognizable liberty interest in having her adult stepson admitted into the United States. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ FAC for failure to state a claim.
I-130 category	Family preference Read by a model Robindeep2 is an adult nonresident alien who was born in India and currently resides in Australia. (FAC ¶ 10.) On April 3, 2015, Partap Singh, Robindeep’s father, married Urmila, a United States citizen who resides in California.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:21-cv-07142
Filed: September 3, 2021
Ended: August 15, 2022
Suit's filing to its end: 346 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.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094

Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2018. The APA provides no avenue for review of a consular visa refusal beyond Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide inquiry, and consular nonreviewability is not a jurisdictional bar.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State, No. 23-4205 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

Ninth Circuit, April 30, 2026. After Muñoz, a citizen spouse's own First Amendment interest triggered Mandel review, which a facially legitimate and bona fide reason satisfied absent a showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-18; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.