KIM et al v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al
| KYUNG HEE KIM, YE JI KIM and JEONG JUN KIM |
| UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES and CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES' IMMIGRANT INVESTORS PROGRAM OFFICE |
| 1:2023cv03455 |
| November 16, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Royce C Lamberth |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES' IMMIGRANT INVESTORS PROGRAM OFFICE, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: #1 Notice and Consent)(zrtw) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (zrtw) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES' IMMIGRANT INVESTORS PROGRAM OFFICE, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-10501987) filed by KYUNG HEE KIM, JEONG JUN KIM, YE JI KIM. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Summons, #4 Summons, #5 Summons, #6 Supplement)(Piston, Michael) (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/17/2023) (zrtw). |
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 District Of Columbia 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
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.
