Max Romero-Urtije v. William Barr
| MAX ROMERO-URTIJE, AKA Francisco Maximiliano Roman-Salgado, AKA Maximiliano Romero-Francisco |
| WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General |
| 19-70832 |
| April 8, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| MAX ROMERO-URTIJE V. WILLIAM BARR |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: NA): The government has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to stay removal pending review. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c), the temporary stay of removal continues in effect until issuance of the mandate or further order of the court. The certified administrative record has been filed. The opening brief is due July 9, 2019; the answering brief is due September 9, 2019; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11309162] (WL) [Entered: 05/24/2019 03:20 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Respondent William P. Barr response non-opposing motion/form/notice at [ # 1 ] For Stay Removal Motion to stay removal. Date of service: 05/24/2019. I certify that I have separately notified all parties not registered for Appellate Electronic Filing in this case with notice of this non-opposition. [11308524] [19-70832] (Holt, John) [Entered: 05/24/2019 10:36 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Certified Administrative Record by Executive Office of Immigration Review. [11276828] [19-70832] (Executive Office Of Immigration Review, DOJ) [Entered: 04/25/2019 10:22 AM] |
| Filing 3 Added attorney John Beadle Holt for William P. Barr, in case 19-70832. [11257869] (RR) [Entered: 04/09/2019 12:32 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of John Beadle Holt for Respondent William P. Barr. Date of service: 04/09/2019. (Party previously proceeding without counsel: No) [11257494] [19-70832] (Holt, John) [Entered: 04/09/2019 10:08 AM] |
| Filing 1 FILED BIA Petition for Review and Motion for Stay. COUNSELED. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4(c) A TEMPORARY STAY OF REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained? NO. Certified Administrative Record due 05/10/2019. Response to motion for stay due 05/31/2019 for William P. Barr, Attorney General. Petitioner opening brief due 07/09/2019 for Max Romero-Urtije. Respondent brief due 09/09/2019 for William P. Barr, Attorney General. Optional reply brief is due 21 days from service of respondent brief. [11255364] (BY) [Entered: 04/08/2019 07:35 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.
| Search for this case: Max Romero-Urtije v. William Barr | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: MAX ROMERO-URTIJE, AKA Francisco Maximiliano Roman-Salgado, AKA Maximiliano Romero-Francisco | |
| Represented By: | Fermin Valencia Esquire I |
| 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: WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General | |
| Represented By: | John Beadle Holt Esquire |
| Represented By: | Chief Counsel ICE |
| 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.
