Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Bloomberg v. Rubio

Western District of WashingtonJames L. RobartDecided December 8, 2025No. 2:25-cv-01420

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
Ms. Bloomberg filed her complaint on July 29, 2025, approximately 18 months after the U.S. Embassy placed her father’s application into administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
This action arises from Defendants’ refusal of Ms. Bloomberg’s father’s application for an IR-5 immigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Defendants assert that Ms. Bloomberg cannot state a claim under the APA because she has failed to identify a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty that requires Defendants to readjudicate her father’s refused nonimmigrant visa application after placing it into administrative processing.
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 (Dkt. # 11).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lida Bloomberg’s complaint for writ of mandamus.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lida Bloomberg’s complaint for writ of mandamus.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Ms. Bloomberg’s complaint, and this action, are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 11).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Ms. Bloomberg’s complaint, and this action, are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Months pending 17.4 months from the application to the suit; 21.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ms. Bloomberg’s father, Mohammadreza Zeinali, completed his immigrant visa interview with a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia in February 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The court concludes that amendment would be futile because the Government does not, as a matter of law, have a mandatory duty to readjudicate a refused visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Ms. Bloomberg began the process of applying for visas for her parents, who are Iranian nationals, in January 2021.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
This action arises from Defendants’ refusal of Ms. Bloomberg’s father’s application for an IR-5 immigrant visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01420
Filed
July 29, 2025
Ended
December 8, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
132 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.