Sorto-Lopez v. Garland
Petitioner: ENRIQUE NOE SORTO-LOPEZ
Respondent: MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Case Number: 21-88
Filed: May 17, 2021
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 6, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER FILED. Pursuant to respondents unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 33), the Clerk will close this courts docket for administrative purposes until further order of the court. This order is not a decision on the merits and has no impact on any stay of removal. No mandate will issue, and at any time any party may request that this immigration petition be reopened, or the court may reopen the petition sua sponte. Within 14 days after a determination at the agency level that petitioner is eligible for discretionary relief, the parties are expected to file a motion to remand. The parties may request a referral to mediation at any time it might benefit the case. [Entered: 09/06/2023 03:51 PM]
August 30, 2023 Filing 33 MOTION to Administratively Close Case filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/30/2023 10:55 AM]
July 8, 2023 Filing 32 CERTIFICATION for law student representation form filed by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 07/08/2023 04:07 PM]
June 20, 2023 Filing 31 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Leah Spero, Counsel for Petitioner Gary A Watt, Counsel for Petitioner Madison Boucher for Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 06/20/2023 03:30 PM]
June 20, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER FILED. Pursuant to this courts June 1, 2023 order, Leah Spero, Esq., Gary A. Watt, Esq., Madison Boucher, Esq., and the UC Law Appellate Project, are hereby appointed to represent petitioner for purposes of this petition for review only. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect that Leah Spero, Esq., Spero Law Office, 255 Kansas Street, Suite 340, San Francisco, CA 94103, Email: leah@sperolegal.com; Gary A. Watt, Esq., Hanson Bridgett LLP, 425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Email: GWatt@hansonbridgett.com; and Madison Boucher, Esq., UC Hastings College of the Law, 200 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, Email: bouchermadison@uchastings.edu, are pro bono counsel of record for petitioner. The court sua sponte expedites the briefing and hearing of this petition. Supplemental or replacement briefing will proceed as follows: the opening brief is due September 8, 2023; the answering brief is due October 23, 2023; and the optional reply brief is due February 9, 2024. This petition will be calendared for oral argument during the month of March 2024. Petitioner is encouraged to file replacement briefing rather than supplemental briefing. Respondent is directed to file a replacement or supplemental brief, or notify the court in writing that respondent stands on the previously filed answering brief. Both parties shall state on the cover pages of the briefs whether they are replacement briefs or supplemental briefs. If a replacement brief is filed, the Clerk will strike the previously tendered brief. Counsel are advised this petition for review has been expedited and extensions of time for briefing will not be granted absent a showing of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Appellate ECF requests for streamlined or automatic extensions of time will not be granted, and any such relief must be requested in a written motion pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). The Clerk will serve this order on petitioner, as well as on all counsel. If petitioner objects to the courts appointment of counsel in this petition, petitioner shall file a written objection within 14 days after the date of this order. [Entered: 06/20/2023 03:27 PM] [Edited: 06/20/2023 03:34 PM]
June 1, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER FILED. The court has determined that appointment of pro bono counsel would benefit the courts review in this petition for review. If petitioner objects to the appointment of counsel, petitioner must file a written objection within 14 days of this order. Absent objection from petitioner, and upon locating suitable counsel, the Clerk will enter an order appointing counsel to represent petitioner for purposes of this petition for review only. The Clerk will also set a supplemental/replacement briefing schedule. [Entered: 06/01/2023 02:49 PM]
May 15, 2023 Filing 28 NOTICE of change of address filed by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 05/16/2023 02:38 PM]
December 5, 2022 Filing 27 NOTICE of change of address filed by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 12/07/2022 02:01 PM]
January 28, 2022 Filing 26 CLERK ACTION: Reply Brief submitted at DE 25 by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez is filed. Original and 6 copies. [Entered: 01/28/2022 10:30:00 AM]
January 27, 2022 Filing 25 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 01/28/2022 10:28:00 AM]
December 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief for 30 days (DE 23) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Optional Reply Brief due 01/28/2022. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. [Entered: 12/21/2021 02:58:00 PM]
December 21, 2021 Filing 23 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file reply brief for 30 days filed by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 12/21/2021 02:55:00 PM]
December 15, 2021 Filing 22 Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 20 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received. [Entered: 12/15/2021 11:55:00 AM]
December 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER FILED. Answering Brief submitted at DE 20 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: 12/09/2021 01:58:00 PM]
December 8, 2021 Filing 20 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 12/08/2021 08:05:00 AM]
November 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Answering Brief for 30 days (DE 17) granted, Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Answering Brief for 30 days (DE 18) denied as unnecessary. Amended briefing schedule: Respondent Answering Brief due 12/20/2021. 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. [Entered: 11/08/2021 03:20:00 PM]
November 8, 2021 Filing 18 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file answering brief for 30 days filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/08/2021 10:24:00 AM]
November 8, 2021 Filing 17 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file answering brief for 30 days filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/08/2021 10:12:00 AM]
September 27, 2021 Filing 16 ADDED Justin Robert Markel for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 09/27/2021 09:38:00 AM]
September 27, 2021 Filing 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Justin Robert Markel for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 09/27/2021 09:03:00 AM]
September 15, 2021 Filing 14 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 13 by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez is filed. Original and 7 copies. [Entered: 09/15/2021 02:49:00 PM]
September 14, 2021 Filing 13 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 09/15/2021 02:47:00 PM]
August 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief for 30 days (DE 11) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Petitioner Opening Brief due 9/20/2021, Respondent Answering Brief due 11/18/2021. 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. [Entered: 08/02/2021 02:09:00 PM]
July 28, 2021 Filing 11 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file opening brief for 30 days filed by Petitioner Enrique Noe Sorto-Lopez. [Entered: 08/02/2021 02:06:00 PM]
July 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER FILED Motion to Stay Removal (DE 2) not opposed. [Entered: 07/14/2021 10:24:00 AM]
July 12, 2021 Filing 9 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent. [Entered: 07/12/2021 07:16:00 AM]
June 3, 2021 Filing 8 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 06/03/2021 04:54:00 AM]
May 18, 2021 Filing 7 ADDED Michelle Regina Slack for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/18/2021 04:57:00 PM]
May 18, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michelle Regina Slack for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/18/2021 04:50:00 PM]
May 17, 2021 Filing 5 FEE PAID by Petitioner(s), receipt #4709005030. [Entered: 05/17/2021 07:50:00 PM]
May 17, 2021 Filing 4 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 6/21/2021, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 7/12/2021, Petitioner Opening Brief due 8/20/2021, Respondent Answering Brief due 10/19/2021. 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: 05/17/2021 04:20:00 PM]
May 17, 2021 Filing 3 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 5/17/2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 21-88 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: 05/17/2021 04:18:00 PM]
May 17, 2021 Filing 2 MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s); REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 05/17/2021 04:03:00 PM]
May 17, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 05/17/2021 04:03:00 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: Sorto-Lopez 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: ENRIQUE NOE SORTO-LOPEZ
Represented By: Ms. Madison Boucher
Represented By: Ms. Leah Spero
Represented By: Mr. Gary A Watt
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. Justin Robert Markel
Represented By: Oil
Represented By: Ms. Michelle Regina Slack
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?