Cases 41 - 50 of 144
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv11231
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv10941
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv10902
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv10700
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv10497
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Violation 5th & 8th Amendme
Pady et al v. US Attorney General et al
as 2:2023cv10425
Plaintiff:
Wadha Kaid Pady and HABIB Radman SALEH
Defendant:
Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Director Ur M Jaddou and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv10106
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2022cv12979
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv12871
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv12839
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
