Ramos-Paez, et al. v. Garland
| INMER ANIBAL RAMOS-PAIZ and JULIO CESAR RAMOS-RUANO |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 22-1153 |
| July 6, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 22 MANDATE ISSUED Mary M. SCHROEDER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Bridget S. BADE [Entered: 10/02/2023 10:33 AM] |
| Filing 21 MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (Mary M. SCHROEDER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Bridget S. BADE) The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 08/09/2023 09:43 AM] |
| Filing 20 Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 18 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received. [Entered: 03/16/2023 02:27 PM] |
Filing 19
ORDER FILED. Answering Brief submitted at DE 18 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: 03/10/2023 02:34 PM]
|
| Filing 18 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/10/2023 09:23 AM] |
|
Filing 17
ORDER FILED. Respondent's motion (Docket Entry No. 16) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The respondent's answering brief is due March 10, 2023. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 01/03/2023 04:19 PM]
|
| Filing 16 MOTION to extend time to file answering brief filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 12/29/2022 11:34 AM] |
|
Filing 15
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Answering Brief for 30 days (DE 14) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due 1/9/2023. 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: 12/05/2022 02:59 PM]
|
| Filing 14 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file answering brief for 30 days filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 12/05/2022 12:38 PM] |
| Filing 13 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 12 by Petitioner Inmer Anibel Ramos-Paez is filed. Original and 6 copies. [Entered: 10/07/2022 01:38:00 PM] |
| Filing 12 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Inmer Anibel Ramos-Paez. [Entered: 10/07/2022 01:37:00 PM] |
|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. The government has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for stay of removal. The temporary stay of removal continues until the mandate issues unless the court orders otherwise.See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.4(c). [Entered: 08/31/2022 10:38:00 AM]
|
| Filing 10 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/31/2022 10:15:00 AM] |
| Filing 9 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 08/03/2022 11:15:00 AM] |
| Filing 8 FEE PAID by Petitioner, MONEY ORDER NUMBER, 19-421985276 for $500.00 processed on Receipt number 4709005539 . [Entered: 07/25/2022 03:58:00 PM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. To proceed in this court, petitioners must pay a $500 filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status. If petitioners do not pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 28 days of this order, the petition may be dismissed for failure to comply. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk will serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on petitioners [Entered: 07/08/2022 09:59:00 AM]
|
| Filing 6 ADDED Sunah Lee for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 07/08/2022 08:53:00 AM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sunah Lee for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 07/08/2022 07:08:00 AM] |
| Filing 4 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 8/10/2022, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 8/31/2022, Petitioner Opening Brief due 10/11/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 12/8/2022. 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: 07/06/2022 02:41:00 PM] |
| 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 7/6/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-1153 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: 07/06/2022 02:39:00 PM] |
| 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: 07/06/2022 01:59:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 07/06/2022 01:59:00 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
