Cheejati v. Blinken
| Ashok Kumar Cheejati, Karthik Rajashekaran, Nishant Mathur, Haragopal Chakravarthy and Seshu Gavara |
| Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State and Ur M. Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services |
| 23-40398 |
| July 7, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| - Other Immigration Actions |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Cheejati v. Blinken
|
|
Cheejati v. Blinken
|
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. # of Copies Provided: 0 (PAPER COPIES NOT REQUESTED AT THIS TIME). [23-40398] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED - The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellants Mr. Haragopal Chakravarthy, Mr. Ashok Kumar Cheejati, Mr. Seshu Gavara, Mr. Nishant Mathur and Mr. Karthik Rajashekaran. Date of service: 08/30/2023 via email - Attorney for Appellant: Banias; Attorney for Appellees: Faso, Gillingham [23-40398] (Bradley Bruce Banias ) [Entered: 08/30/2023 07:53 AM] |
| Filing 15 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 09/25/2023 for Appellants Haragopal Chakravarthy, Ashok Kumar Cheejati, Seshu Gavara, Nishant Mathur and Karthik Rajashekaran. [23-40398] (DDL) [Entered: 08/16/2023 10:52 AM] |
| Filing 14 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [23-40398] (DDL) [Entered: 08/16/2023 10:52 AM] |
| Filing 13 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 4:23-CV-600. Electronic ROA due on 08/23/2023. [23-40398] (DLJ) [Entered: 08/08/2023 10:28 AM] |
| Filing 10 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Alessandra Faso for party(s) Appellee Ur M. Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Appellee Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State, in case 23-40398 [23-40398] (ABT) [Entered: 07/19/2023 11:21 AM] |
| Filing 9 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [23-40398] (Alessandra Faso ) [Entered: 07/17/2023 02:00 PM] |
| Filing 7 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [7] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 08/01/2023 for Appellants Haragopal Chakravarthy, Ashok Kumar Cheejati, Seshu Gavara, Nishant Mathur and Karthik Rajashekaran [23-40398] (ABT) [Entered: 07/17/2023 10:43 AM] |
| Filing 8 PARTY LIMIT CASE. (FOR A FULL LIST OF PARTIES FOR THIS APPEAL, PLEASE REFER TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S DOCKET SHEET.) [23-40398] (ABT) [Entered: 07/17/2023 10:47 AM] |
| Filing 4 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Bradley Bruce Banias for Appellant Seshu Gavara in 23-40398, Attorney Bradley Bruce Banias for Appellant Haragopal Chakravarthy in 23-40398, Attorney Bradley Bruce Banias for Appellant Nishant Mathur in 23-40398, Attorney Bradley Bruce Banias for Appellant Karthik Rajashekaran in 23-40398, Attorney Bradley Bruce Banias for Appellant Ashok Kumar Cheejati in 23-40398 [23-40398] (ABT) [Entered: 07/10/2023 03:09 PM] |
| Filing 2 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Bradley Bruce Banias, Esq. for Mr. Haragopal Chakravarthy, Mr. Ashok Kumar Cheejati, Mr. Seshu Gavara, Mr. Nishant Mathur and Mr. Karthik Rajashekaran for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [23-40398] (Bradley Bruce Banias ) [Entered: 07/09/2023 09:20 PM] |
| Filing 1 US CIVIL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Mr. Haragopal Chakravarthy, Mr. Ashok Kumar Cheejati, Mr. Seshu Gavara, Mr. Nishant Mathur and Mr. Karthik Rajashekaran [23-40398] (ABT) [Entered: 07/07/2023 04:19 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.
