Villalta-Cisneros v. Garland
| JORGE EDUARDO RIVERA-VILLALTA, WENDY CECILIA VILLALTA-CISNEROS, CARLOS ALBERTO ROMERO-RAMIREZ, JOSHUA MATEO ROMERO-RIVERA and WENDY SUHAN RIVERA-VILLALTA |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 21-894 |
| October 12, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER FILED. Pursuant to respondents unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 16), 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: 04/11/2022 04:27:00 PM]
|
| Filing 16 MOTION to administratively close case filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 04/11/2022 12:52:00 PM] |
|
Filing 15
ORDER FILED. Petitioner's unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 14) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due May 20, 2022. The answering brief is due July 19, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 03/17/2022 04:08:00 PM]
|
| Filing 14 MOTION to extend time to file opening brief filed by Petitioner Wendy Suhan Rivera-Villalta, Petitioner Joshua Mateo Romero-Rivera, Petitioner Jorge Eduardo Rivera-Villalta, Petitioner Wendy Cecilia Villalta-Cisneros, Petitioner Carlos Alberto Romero-Ramirez. [Entered: 03/17/2022 12:05:00 PM] |
|
Filing 13
ORDER FILED. Motion to Extend Time to File Opening Brief (DE 12) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Petitioner Opening Brief due 3/21/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 5/20/2022. 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. [Entered: 02/16/2022 04:37:00 PM]
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to extend time to file opening brief filed by Petitioner Wendy Suhan Rivera-Villalta, Petitioner Joshua Mateo Romero-Rivera, Petitioner Jorge Eduardo Rivera-Villalta, Petitioner Wendy Cecilia Villalta-Cisneros, Petitioner Carlos Alberto Romero-Ramirez. [Entered: 02/16/2022 03:22:00 PM] |
|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief for 30 days (DE 10) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Petitioner Opening Brief due 2/17/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 4/18/2022. 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. [Entered: 01/13/2022 02:59:00 PM]
|
| Filing 10 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file opening brief for 30 days filed by Petitioner Wendy Suhan Rivera-Villalta, Petitioner Joshua Mateo Romero-Rivera, Petitioner Jorge Eduardo Rivera-Villalta, Petitioner Wendy Cecilia Villalta-Cisneros, Petitioner Carlos Alberto Romero-Ramirez. [Entered: 01/13/2022 02:44:00 PM] |
|
Filing 9
ORDER FILED. Motion to Stay Removal (DE 2) not opposed. [Entered: 11/08/2021 02:48:00 PM]
|
| Filing 8 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/08/2021 09:51:00 AM] |
| Filing 7 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 10/29/2021 01:24:00 PM] |
| Filing 6 ADDED Gerald M. Alexander for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/13/2021 09:27:00 AM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gerald M. Alexander for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/13/2021 07:24:00 AM] |
| Filing 4 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 11/16/2021, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 12/7/2021, Petitioner Opening Brief due 1/17/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 3/16/2022. 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: 10/12/2021 09:33:00 AM] |
| 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 10/11/2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 21-894 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: 10/12/2021 09:30:00 AM] |
| 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: 10/12/2021 09:27:00 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 10/12/2021 09:27:00 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.
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.
