Wang v. Mayorkas et al
| Xiu Li Wang |
| Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Director Timothy Houghton and Depty Director Scott Velez |
| 1:2022cv00247 |
| January 11, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| John G Koeltl |
| 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 May 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER: granting #8 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #8 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply presently scheduled for March 15, 2022 to May 16, 2022. addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from SAUSA Jacqueline Roman dated 03/10/2022. Application Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/11/2022) (ama)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Alejandro Mayorkas answer due 5/16/2022. (ama) |
| Filing 8 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply presently scheduled for March 15, 2022 to May 16, 2022 addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from SAUSA Jacqueline Roman dated 03/10/2022. Document filed by Timothy Houghton, Alejandro Mayorkas, Scott Velez..(Roman, Jacqueline) |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Appearance served on Xiu Li Wang on 01/26/2019. Service was made by Certified Mail. Document filed by Timothy Houghton, Alejandro Mayorkas, Scott Velez..(Roman, Jacqueline) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jacqueline Roman on behalf of Timothy Houghton, Alejandro Mayorkas, Scott Velez..(Roman, Jacqueline) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Summons and Complaint/Petition in the Nature of Mandamus, served. Alejandro Mayorkas, served on 1/11/2022, answer due 3/14/2022. Service was made by Mail, to U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; Secretary of DHS, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Document filed by Xiu Li Wang. (sc) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Summons and Complaint/Petition in the Nature of Mandamus served. Timothy Houghton, served on 1/11/2022, answer due 3/14/2022. Service was made by Mail, to U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; Secretary of DHS, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Document filed by Xiu Li Wang. (sc) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Summons and Complaint/Petition in the Nature of Mandamus served. Scott Velez, served on 1/11/2022, answer due 3/14/2022. Service was made by Mail, to U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; Secretary of DHS, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Document filed by Xiu Li Wang. (sc) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Timothy Houghton, Alejandro Mayorkas, Scott Velez. (sac) |
| Filing 1 PETITION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS against Timothy Houghton, Alejandro Mayorkas, Scott Velez (Filing Fee $402.00, Receipt Number 465401292010). Document filed by Xiu Li Wang. (sac) |
| Case Designated ECF. (sac) |
| Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (sac) |
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 Southern 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.
