Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Motaghedi v. Blinken

Eastern District of CaliforniaDale A. DrozdDecided January 14, 2020No. 1:19-cv-01466

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
Plaintiffs contend that a “group within the Department of State, known as the ‘PP 9645 Brain Trust’ has implemented a policy and procedure stripping consular officers of the discretion granted to them by PP 9645.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege they have fulfilled all requirements to obtain family-based or fiancé-based visas.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs additionally request the Court to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ waivers within fifteen days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
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 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Under the current law and facts at this early stage, the Court does not find Plaintiffs have demonstrated a fair chance of success on the merits for unreasonable delay and their APA § 702(6) claim
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 prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability has no application to Plaintiffs’ claims in this case.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées applying for visas (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”).
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
Their visas have been refused pursuant to PP 9645.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Motaghedi v. BlinkenThis decision January 14, 2020 Dale A. Drozd Denied in the government's favor
Motaghedi v. Blinken January 30, 2020 Dale A. Drozd Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Motaghedi v. BlinkenThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 30, 2021 Dale A. Drozd Procedural order

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-01466
Filed
October 15, 2019
Ended
April 22, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
555 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
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.