Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Zahra Qubadi v. Rena Bitter

Central District of CaliforniaMichelle Williams CourtDecided July 16, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00500

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
On multiple occasions since his interview, the Embassy has requested that Beneficiary submit an Administrative Processing Questionnaire(the “Questionnaire”).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
This action arises from Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus seeking an order for Defendants to adjudicate her spouse Mohammad Reza Hosseini’s (“Beneficiary”) Form I-130 immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Here, as Plaintiff clarifies, she is not challenging a consular officer’s decision, but rather asking the Court to require Defendants to render a final decision.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having considered the papers, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the action under to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 28)
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 3 months from the application to the suit; 8.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 22, 2024, Beneficiary was noticed of his consular interview in Oman on October 22, 2024, for which he appeared.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, as alleged in the complaint, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is not triggered as the consular officer has not fully adjudicated Beneficiary’s visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
for Beneficiary, an Iranian national.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
her spouse Mohammad Reza Hosseini’s (“Beneficiary”) Form I-130 immigrant visa application. See Dkt. # 1 (“Compl.”). The complaint alleges as follows On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff, a United States Citizen,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00500
Filed
January 20, 2025
Ended
November 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
308 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2025-11-24; 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.