Suescum-Mora v. Garland
| DAYANA PAULETTE SUESCUM-MORA, MARTHA NOEMI ATI-SUESCUM and INGRID MAITE ATI-SUESCUM |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 23-7885 |
| November 30, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY, Lisa Marie Arnold for Respondent Merrick B. Garland, TERMINATED. [Entered: 12/01/2023 09:32 AM] |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY, Duncan T. Fulton in place of attorney Lisa Marie Arnold, SUBSTITUTED. [Entered: 12/01/2023 09:30 AM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL/ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Merrick B. Garland, FILED. [Entered: 12/01/2023 09:23 AM] |
| Filing 5 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ORDER, SERVED. [Entered: 11/30/2023 03:52 PM] |
| Filing 4 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Petitioner Dayana Paulette Suescum-Mora, Petitioner Ingrid Maite Ati-Suescum, Petitioner Martha Noemi Ati-Suescum, USCA receipt # A02-2317-ACMS, FILED. [Entered: 11/30/2023 03:47 PM] |
| Filing 3 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ORDER, on behalf of Petitioner Dayana Paulette Suescum-Mora, Petitioner Ingrid Maite Ati-Suescum, Petitioner Martha Noemi Ati-Suescum, received on 11/29/2023, OPENED. [Entered: 11/30/2023 03:35 PM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION AND ORDER, dated 10/30/2023, RECEIVED. [Entered: 11/30/2023 03:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ORDER, on behalf of Petitioner Dayana Paulette Suescum-Mora, Petitioner Ingrid Maite Ati-Suescum, Petitioner Martha Noemi Ati-Suescum, FILED. [Entered: 11/30/2023 03:00 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
