Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Council on American-Islamic Relations California v. Blinken

Eastern District of CaliforniaTroy L. NunleyDecided September 26, 2022No. 2:22-cv-01500

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 in Obiedat, Plaintiffs in the instant case “have not pointed to any rule or regulation or statute that requires the State Department to adjudicate any individual visa” or schedule interviews.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Defendants have shown that the Department considers various factors such as completion of a DS-260 and interviewing post capacities in conjunction with rank order when scheduling interviews.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
fulfill their mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to process Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications, schedule Plaintiffs for immigrant visa interviews, and issue visas to eligible Applicant Plaintiffs and DV- 22 applicants
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a TRO on September 12, 2022.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
As such, the fourth TRAC factor weighs heavily against Plaintiffs and likely precludes them from succeeding on the merits of their unreasonable delay claim.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs essentially seek to be placed ahead of other diversity visa selectees.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs consist of Iranian national selectees for the Fiscal Year 2022 (“FY 2022”) diversity visa program

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-01500
Filed
August 24, 2022
Ended
October 3, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
21 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2022-10-03; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.