Abel Mendez v. Attorney General United States of America
| ABEL MENDEZ |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 23-1099 |
| January 17, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis on behalf of Respondent(s) Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General. [23-1099, 21-1518, 22-1362] (RB) [Entered: 01/17/2023 03:55 PM] |
| Filing 5 Court of Appeals fee paid. Receipt No. A03-63591-692. Receipt dated 1/19/23. (SB) [Entered: 01/17/2023 02:31 PM] |
| Filing 4 CLERK ORDER The above-captioned petitions for review are hereby consolidated for all purposes. As the administrative records filed in Nos. 21-1518 and 22-1362 do not contain the proceedings that are the subject of No. 23-1099, Respondent is hereby ordered to file a supplemental record within 21 days of the date of this order. As counsel for Petitioner indicated to the Court that he plans to pay the filing fee for this petition, action on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred pending receipt of the $500.00 filing fee. On May 10, 2022, the Court held the parties cross-motions to remand in No. 21-1518 in abeyance, pending the BIAs resolution of Petitioners motion to reconsider. A decision on that motion was entered on December 16, 2022 and is the subject of the petition pending at No. 23-1099. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the parties must file written responses in No. 21-1518 addressing the effect, if any, the new BIA decision has on the parties cross-motions to remand. No. 21-1518 in abeyance, pending the BIAs resolution of Petitioners motion to reconsider. A decision on that motion was entered on December 16, 2022 and is the subject of the petition pending at No. 23-1099. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the parties must file written responses in No. 21-1518 addressing the effect, if any, the new BIA decision has on the parties cross-motions to remand. (SB) [Entered: 01/17/2023 02:09 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION filed by Petitioner Abel Mendez to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Response due on 01/27/2023. Certificate of Service dated 01/17/2023. Service made by Email. (SB) [Entered: 01/17/2023 02:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed by Attorney Kunal Sharma, Esq. for Petitioner Abel Mendez.. (SB) [Entered: 01/17/2023 02:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 AGENCY CASE DOCKETED. Petition filed by Abel Mendez. Certificate of Service dated 01/17/2023. Service made by Email. (SB) [Entered: 01/17/2023 01:55 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.
| Search for this case: Abel Mendez v. Attorney General United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: ABEL MENDEZ | |
| Represented By: | Kunal Sharma Esq. |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Rachel Berman-Vaporis Esq. |
| Represented By: | Merrick B. Garland Esq. |
| Represented By: | OIL |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
