Cases 21 - 30 of 14,944
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06151
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
GIRGIS et al v. MAYORKAS et al
as 1:2024cv02594
Plaintiff:
KIROLLOS AWAD BADIE GIRGIS, SAMAH SOBHY HABIL ABDELMALAK, AWAD BADIE FOWAD GIRGIS and others
Defendant:
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR M. JADDOU and MERRICK B. GARLAND
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06257
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06287
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
LI v. JADDOU et al
as 2:2024cv04749
Defendant:
Atty General MERRICK B. GARLAND, Director UR M. JADDOU, Secretary ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS and others
Plaintiff:
SHUI MING LI
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01277
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv06323
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv06282
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Dholu v. Mayorkas et al
as 3:2024cv00301
Plaintiff:
Jigneshkumar Vitthalbhai Dholu
Defendant:
Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland and Ur Jaddou
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 1156 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02056
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 055
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.
