Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Dobashi v. Trump

Northern District of CaliforniaJoseph C. SperoDecided August 29, 2025No. 3:19-cv-05558

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
All of the plaintiffs alleged that they had filed I-130 petitions and their beneficiaries had been interviewed by State Department consular officers at the United States’ Embassy in Djibouti between April and December of 2017.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The consular officer refused immigrant visa applications under INA §221(g), 8 U.S.C. §1201(g)
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
an order directing Embassy officials to issue the Remaining Beneficiaries’ previously approved visas.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and dismisses this case, in its entirety, with prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court concludes that it is unable to afford the equitable relief sought by Plaintiff and the Remaining Beneficiaries under the specific facts of this case and therefore, that his Mandamus Act and APA claims are moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court concludes that it is unable to afford the equitable relief sought by Plaintiff and the Remaining Beneficiaries under the specific facts of this case and therefore, that his Mandamus Act and APA claims are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court concludes that it is unable to afford the equitable relief sought by Plaintiff and the Remaining Beneficiaries under the specific facts of this case and therefore, that his Mandamus Act and APA claims are moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and dismisses this case, in its entirety, with prejudice.
Months pending 48.4 months from the application to the suit; 107 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
on August 4, 2024, the Remaining Beneficiaries appeared for a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti and were denied visas pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), as the applicants were married and thus no longer eligible as derivative beneficiaries.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court concludes that it is unable to afford the equitable relief sought by Plaintiff and the Remaining Beneficiaries under the specific facts of this case and therefore, that his Mandamus Act and APA claims are moot.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 9645 Read by a model
On January 8, 2018, the consular officer refused the immigrant visa application under INA §212(t), 8 U.S.C. §l 182(f), in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 9645
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
In 2001, he filed an I-130 petition seeking a visa for his son, Mohamed Abdo Ali Mohamed, and his son’s family, to join him in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:19-cv-05558
Filed
September 4, 2019
Ended
August 29, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
2,186 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.