Sanchez-Zhiminaicela v. Garland
| LOURDES VERONICA SANCHEZ-ZHIMINAICELA and MILENA SARAHI ZHIMINAICELA-SANCHEZ |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 24-311 |
| February 7, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 8, 2024. 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: 02/08/2024 07:08 PM] |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY, Mona Maria Yousif in place of attorney Lisa Marie Arnold, SUBSTITUTED. [Entered: 02/08/2024 07:01 PM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, on behalf of Merrick B. Garland, FILED. [Entered: 02/07/2024 10:58 AM] [Edited: 02/08/2024 07:08 PM] |
| Filing 5 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ORDER, SERVED. [Entered: 02/07/2024 09:17 AM] [Edited: 02/07/2024 09:20 AM] |
| Filing 4 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Petitioner Lourdes Veronica Sanchez-Zhiminaicela, Petitioner Milena Sarahi Zhiminaicela-Sanchez, USCA receipt # A02-2474-ACMS, FILED. [Entered: 02/07/2024 09:12 AM] |
| Filing 3 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ORDER, on behalf of Petitioner Lourdes Veronica Sanchez-Zhiminaicela, Petitioner Milena Sarahi Zhiminaicela-Sanchez, received on 02/05/2024, OPENED. [Entered: 02/07/2024 09:10 AM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION AND ORDER, dated 01/05/2024, RECEIVED. [Entered: 02/07/2024 08:59 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ORDER, on behalf of Petitioner Lourdes Veronica Sanchez-Zhiminaicela, Petitioner Milena Sarahi Zhiminaicela-Sanchez, FILED. [Entered: 02/07/2024 08:59 AM] |
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.
