Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Morales v. Mayorkas

Southern District of CaliforniaRoger T. BenitezDecided June 7, 2024No. 3:23-cv-01758

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
As of June 30, 2023, the Warsaw Embassy was still processing the petition.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants’ delay in adjudicating Plaintiff's fiancé’s visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief premised on Defendants’ delay in adjudicating the visa application: (1) unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act in conjunction with the Mandamus; and (2) a denial of Due Process rights.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is DENIED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff's APA claim and Mandamus Act claim are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state an APA or Mandamus Act claim based on unreasonable delay.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff's APA claim and Mandamus Act claim are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff's due process claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Months pending 7.9 months from the application to the suit; 16.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Tereschenko appeared for an interview at the Warsaw Embassy on January 18, 2023 and submitted additional documents, as requested.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This factor weighs in Defendants’ favor and it is the most important factor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Under circumstances similar to those presented in this case courts have concluded that the fourth TRAC factor weighs strongly in favor of the government.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Tereschenko is a Russian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-01758
Filed
September 25, 2023
Ended
June 7, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
256 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-06-07 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.