Delgadillo-Mejia v. Garland
| JOSE MARIA DELGADILLO-MEJIA |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 21-1201 |
| November 22, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 35
MANDATE ISSUED Mary H. MURGUIA, Michelle T. FRIEDLAND, Mark J. BENNETT [Entered: 07/07/2023 08:57 AM]
|
|
Filing 34
MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (Mary H. MURGUIA, Michelle T. FRIEDLAND, Mark J. BENNETT) PETITION DENIED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 05/15/2023 10:40 AM]
|
|
Filing 33
SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS to Mary H. MURGUIA, Michelle T. FRIEDLAND, Mark J. BENNETT. [Entered: 05/11/2023 03:08 PM]
|
|
Filing 32
ORDER FILED. The court is of the unanimous opinion that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, this case is ordered submitted without oral argument on May 11, 2023, in San Francisco, California. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). [Entered: 03/08/2023 04:26 PM]
|
|
Filing 31
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Thursday, May 11, 2023 - 09:30 A.M. - Courtroom 3 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. At this time, even when in person hearings resume, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion, and any attorney wishing to appear in person must provide proof of vaccination. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you at least two weeks before the argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance. Please note however that if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [Entered: 03/08/2023 02:20 PM]
|
|
Filing 30
NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco, CA. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for May 2023 and the 2 subsequent sitting months in that location at #http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on either of the dates, please file Form 32 (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully. When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a motoin within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. [Entered: 01/24/2023 02:42 PM]
|
|
Filing 29
NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco, CA. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for April 2023 and the 2 subsequent sitting months in that location at #http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on either of the dates, please file Form 32 (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully. When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a motion within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. [Entered: 12/19/2022 09:45 AM]
|
|
Filing 28
Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 26 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received. [Entered: 10/11/2022 02:56 PM]
|
|
Filing 27
ORDER FILED. Answering Brief submitted at DE 26 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Respondent must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with red front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 10/05/2022 03:26:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 26
ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/05/2022 08:58:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 25
ORDER FILED. Respondent's unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 24) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The respondent's answering brief is due October 5, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 08/30/2022 09:36:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 24
MOTION to extend time to file answering brief filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/29/2022 12:16:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 23
ORDER FILED. Respondents motion (Docket Entry No. 22) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due September 6, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 08/17/2022 01:39:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 22
MOTION to extend time to file answering brief filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/02/2022 07:57:16 AM]
|
|
Filing 21
ORDER FILED. Respondent's unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 20) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The respondent's answering brief is due August 4, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 06/29/2022 01:41:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 20
MOTION to extend time to file answering brief filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 06/29/2022 09:00:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 19
Paper copies (6) of Opening Brief submitted at DE 16 by Petitioner Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia received 05/27/2022. [Entered: 05/31/2022 03:07:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 16 by Petitioner Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Petitioner must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with blue front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 05/05/2022 12:45:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER FILED. Petitioners motion to reinstate this petition for review (Docket Entry No. 15) is granted. The order of dismissal for failure to prosecute (Docket Entry No. 12) is vacated, the petition for review is reinstated, and the temporary stay of removal is restored. The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 16. The answering brief is now due July 5, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 05/05/2022 10:42:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 16
OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia. [Entered: 04/10/2022 05:52:00 PM]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached separate PDFs of brief and addendum] [Edited: 04/11/2022 02:08:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION to reinstate case filed by Petitioner Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia. [Entered: 04/10/2022 05:50:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 14
ADDED Sean Paul Perdomo for Petitioner Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia. [Entered: 04/05/2022 08:37:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 13
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sean Paul Perdomo for Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia. [Entered: 04/04/2022 08:45:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER FILED. Petitioner has failed to file the opening brief in this case. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. This order will be served on the agency and will become the mandate of the court in 21 days. [Entered: 03/31/2022 01:36:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. Motion to Stay Removal (DE 3) not opposed. [Entered: 01/20/2022 12:40:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 10
CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 12/29/2021 10:05:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 9
CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 12/29/2021 09:06:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 8
ADDED Joseph Anthony O'Connell for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/23/2021 03:12:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joseph Anthony O'Connell for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/22/2021 05:19:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 6
BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 12/27/2021, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 1/18/2022, Petitioner Opening Brief due 2/25/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 4/26/2022. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 11/22/2021 12:59:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 5
CASE OPENED. Petition for Review has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 11/22/2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 21-1201 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants), review the #Appellate Practice Guide, and counsel for petitioner(s) should also review the #Immigration Outline and consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 11/22/2021 12:57:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 4
AGENCY DECISION on review dated 11/12/2021. [Entered: 11/22/2021 12:32:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s); REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 11/22/2021 12:30:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 2
AGENCY DECISION on review dated 11/12/2021. [Entered: 11/22/2021 12:29:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 11/22/2021 12:26:00 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: Delgadillo-Mejia v. Garland | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: JOSE MARIA DELGADILLO-MEJIA | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Omar Nakib |
| Represented By: | Mr. Sean Paul Perdomo, I, Mr |
| 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: MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Joseph Anthony O'Connell |
| 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.
