Otgonbayar Lkhagvasuren v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Otgonbayar Lkhagvasuren v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Petitioner,:	OTGONBAYAR LKHAGVASUREN
Respondent,:	ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Case Number:	13-71778
Filed:	May 21, 2013
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
July 13, 2016	Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch
December 30, 2016	OTGONBAYAR LKHAGVASUREN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 30, 2016	Filing 9028656605 Filed order and amended opinion (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, MARY M. SCHROEDER and ALEX KOZINSKI).The last paragraph of page four of the slip opinion filed on July 13, 2016, is hereby amended as follows: (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) With this amendment, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED. Judge Kozinski has voted to deny the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and Judges Wallace and Schroeder so recommend. The full court has been advised of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed. Respondent s unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Petition for Panel Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner s motion to hold proceedings in abeyance pending a decision on his motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals is DENIED. [10250293]

Date Filed

Document Text

December 30, 2016

Filing 9028656605 Filed order and amended opinion (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, MARY M. SCHROEDER and ALEX KOZINSKI).The last paragraph of page four of the slip opinion filed on July 13, 2016, is hereby amended as follows: (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) With this amendment, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED. Judge Kozinski has voted to deny the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and Judges Wallace and Schroeder so recommend. The full court has been advised of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed. Respondent s unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Petition for Panel Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner s motion to hold proceedings in abeyance pending a decision on his motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals is DENIED. [10250293]

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: Otgonbayar Lkhagvasuren v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner,: OTGONBAYAR LKHAGVASUREN
Represented By:	Jeremiah Johnson
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,: ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Represented By:	OIL
Represented By:	Chief Counsel ICE
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.

Why Is My Information Online?