Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Soltani v. Blinken

Eastern District of CaliforniaChi Soo KimDecided May 15, 2025No. 2:24-cv-03067

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Effectively, Plaintiffs request 16 relief in the form of the State Department prioritizing their immigrant visa applications 17 over other applicants also awaiting final decisions.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
the denial of the Soltani parents’ visa applications under INA 12 § 221(g) is not a final decision
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 6, 2024, seeking to compel 14 Defendants to adjudicate the Soltani parents’ immigrant visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (ECF 17 No. 9) is GRANTED;
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
D efendants’ alternate motion for summary 2 judgment is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (ECF 17 No. 9) is GRANTED;
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
D efendants’ alternate motion for summary 2 judgment is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Judgment shall be entered for D efendants;
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Therefore, Defendants 13 are entitled to summary judgment on P laintiff’s APA claim for unreasonable delay.
Months pending 9.5 months from the application to the suit; 15.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Behrouz Soltani and Arezou Sarhangzadeh 10 Afshar appeared for a consular interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal and 11 executed applications for immigrant visas.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This factor weights in D efendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
“Most courts have found 23 that the fourth TRAC factor weighs heavily in the agency’s favor when a judicial order 24 putting plaintiffs at the head of the line would simply move all others back one space and 25 produce no net gain.”). The fourth factor weighs in favor of D efendants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
the denial of the Soltani parents’ visa applications under INA 12 § 221(g) is not a final decision, and the doctrine of consular non- reviewability does not 13 apply.
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Her parents, Plaintiffs Behrouz Soltani and Arezou Sarhangzadeh 4 Afshar, are Canadian citizens.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
P laintiff Ara Soltani (Soltani) is a U.S. Citizen. (Compl. 3 ¶ 74, ECF No. 1. ) Her parents, Plaintiffs Behrouz Soltani and Arezou Sarhangzadeh 4 Afshar, are Canadian citizens.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-03067
Filed
November 6, 2024
Ended
May 15, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
190 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.