Tianting Xing v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
| TIANTING XING |
| U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES |
| 2:2023cv08383 |
| October 5, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 REFUND OF $402.00 made payable on 12/05/2023 to John Kiang for payment made on 10/05/2023 Re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid Re: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 #4 . (rdj) |
| Filing 5 In response to the opening of this case, the Clerk issued a Notice to Filer of Deficiencies in Attorney Case Opening. The Notice indicated that unless counsel corrected the identified discrepancy within two business days, the docket for this case number would be closed and no further filings would be permitted under this case number. Counsel has not corrected the discrepancy. Accordingly, this case is now closed. No further filings may be made under this case number, except, if applicable, to request a refund of fees using a Form G-124, Application for Refund of Fees. Should you wish to pursue this action, a new case must be filed and a new case number issued. (Case Terminated.) (ghap) |
| Filing 4 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid Re: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Tianting Xing. (Kiang, John) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Errata filed by plaintiff Tianting Xing. (Kiang, John) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): The complaint filed on this case 23-cv-8383 is a duplicate filing of another case 23-cv-8384, and missing CV71 and CV30. To request for a refund, please prepare and efile the Application for Refund (form G-124) using the event Motions and Related Filings Applications/Ex Parte Applications/Motions/Petitions/Requests Refund of Fees Paid (G-124) on the duplicate case 23-cv-8383. (et) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36167627 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Attorney John Kiang added to party U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES(pty:dft))(Kiang, John) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Tianting Xing v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: TIANTING XING | |
| Represented By: | John Kiang |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES | |
| Represented By: | John Kiang |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
