Tong v. Garland et al
| Bo Tong |
| US Attorney General Merrick B Garland, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Director Ur M. Jaddou and Director Brian J Meier |
| 1:2024cv02742 |
| April 12, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Joseph A Marutollo |
| Other Immigration 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 April 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Bo Tong. All Defendants. (Barnett, Keith) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Merrick B Garland, Ur M. Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, Brian J Meier, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (KD) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice Re: Consent. A magistrate judge has been assigned as the presiding judge in this case as part of a Pilot Program, governed by EDNY Administrative Order 2023-23. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form is also available here: #https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. Unless all parties consent to the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by the deadline set forth in the Administrative Order 2023-23, a District Judge will be assigned to the case. The parties are directed to review the terms of Administrative Order 2023-23 and other materials related to the Pilot Program on the Courts website: #https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program. (KD) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Bo Tong against All Defendants filing fee $ 405, receipt number ANYEDC-17767894 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by Bo Tong. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons Proposed Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit Exhibit A- N400 Filing Receipt 10312016, #4 Exhibit Exhibit B- N400 Biometric 11052016, #5 Exhibit Exhibit C- N400 Decision 01262021, #6 Exhibit Exhibit D- N336 Application 03192021, #7 Exhibit Exhibit E- N336 Receipt 03232021, #8 Exhibit Exhibit F- Interview Date 11022022, #9 Exhibit Exhibit G- N652 N-400 Interview results 12132022, #10 Exhibit Exhibit H- Inquiry USCIS 1st 03052023, #11 Exhibit Exhibit I- Inquiry USCIS 2nd 04242023, #12 Exhibit Exhibit J- Inquiry USCIS 3rd 06222023, #13 Exhibit Exhibit K- Inquiry USCIS 4th 01082024, #14 Exhibit Exhibit L- Automated Case Information A205-027-283 ALVARADO-ORTEGA, ANTHONY SEBASTIAN, #15 Exhibit Exhibit M- Processing Times) (Barnett, Keith) |
| Case Assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (KD) |
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 New York Eastern 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.
