Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Ahmed v. United States Department of State

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan van KeulenDecided January 26, 2024No. 5:23-cv-02474

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
At that time, the United States Embassy in Islamabad, 20 which is responsible for the case of Plaintiff’s spouse, had a backlog of 12,064 documentarily- 21 complete applicants for immediate relative visas who were awaiting interview appointments.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The spouse’s immigrant visa application is not deemed complete until 9 the interview occurs.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
In this case, Defendants have not established that they do not have a duty to schedule a 16 visa interview of Plaintiff’s spouse without unreasonable delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary 7 judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which Plaintiff 22 opposes.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which Plaintiff 22 opposes.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
the Court finds that Defendant s have established 8 that they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first claim for relief
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s due process 4 claim.
Months pending 20 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
This was less than one year before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit and approximately 20 months 25 before the date of this Order.
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
the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
under the “first-in, first- 14 out” scheduling protocol employed by Defendants stems from the backlog of applicants awaiting 15 interviews combined with the limitations on how many visa interviews the U.S. Embassy in 16 Islamabad can conduct each day.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff’s 27 spouse, Beenish Javed, is a citizen of Pakistan.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Adnan Ahmed is a United States citizen. Dkt. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s 27 spouse, Beenish Javed, is a citizen of Pakistan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:23-cv-02474
Filed
May 19, 2023
Ended
January 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
252 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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.