Chavez Soto v. Garland
| MARIA DEL CARMEN CHAVEZ SOTO, ANTONIA GUADALUPE GOMEZ CHAVEZ and EDUARDO GOMEZ CHAVEZ |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 22-22 |
| January 5, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 30
MANDATE ISSUED Milan D. SMITH, Jr., John B. OWENS, Xavier Rodriguez [Entered: 05/26/2023 08:42 AM]
|
|
Filing 29
MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (Milan D. SMITH, Jr., John B. OWENS, Xavier Rodriguez) The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION DISMISSED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 04/03/2023 09:50 AM]
|
|
Filing 28
SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS to Milan D. SMITH, Jr., John B. OWENS, Xavier Rodriguez. [Entered: 03/30/2023 11:31 AM]
|
|
Filing 27
ORDER FILED. The court is of the unanimous opinion that the facts and legal argument are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, this matter is ordered submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument on March 30, 2023, in San Francisco, California. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). [Entered: 03/07/2023 10:52 AM]
|
|
Filing 26
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Thursday, March 30, 2023 - 09:00 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: 01/17/2023 10:39 AM]
|
|
Filing 25
Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 22 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received. [Entered: 11/21/2022 02:31 PM]
|
|
Filing 24
NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco, CA. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for March 6-10 and March 27-31, 2023 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: 11/18/2022 10:19 AM]
|
|
Filing 23
ORDER FILED. Answering Brief submitted at DE 22 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: 11/03/2022 02:48 PM]
|
|
Filing 22
ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/03/2022 12:22 PM]
|
|
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 November 7, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 10/05/2022 01:32:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 20
MOTION to extend time to file answering brief filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/05/2022 11:09:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Answering Brief for 30 days (DE 18) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due 10/6/2022. 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: 08/31/2022 03:35:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 18
STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file answering brief for 30 days filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/31/2022 02:29:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 17
Paper copies (6) of Opening Brief submitted at DE 15 by Petitioners received 07/11/2022. [Entered: 07/12/2022 11:26:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 15 by petitioners is filed. Within 7 days of this order, petitioners 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: 07/06/2022 01:44:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 15
OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Antonia Guadalupe Gomez Chavez, Petitioner Maria Del Carmen Chavez Soto, Petitioner Eduardo Gomez Chavez. [Entered: 07/06/2022 11:25:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. The governments motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied because the questions raised by this petition are sufficient to warrant full briefing. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6(a) (standard for summary disposition); see also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982). The opening brief is due July 8, 2022. The answering brief is due September 6, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days of service of the answering brief. [Entered: 05/17/2022 04:46:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief for 30 days (DE 12) denied as unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed until resolution of the pending motion for summary disposition. [Entered: 04/07/2022 09:39:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 12
STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file opening brief for 30 days filed by Petitioner Antonia Guadalupe Gomez Chavez, Petitioner Maria Del Carmen Chavez Soto, Petitioner Eduardo Gomez Chavez. [Entered: 04/07/2022 05:49:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 11
MOTION for summary disposition filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/02/2022 02:27:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 10
OPPOSITION to motion to stay removal filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/02/2022 02:25:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 9
CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 02/07/2022 09:48:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 8
ADDED Andrew B. Insenga for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/06/2022 03:06:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew B. Insenga for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/06/2022 01:23:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 6
Motion to Stay Removal filed at DE 5; Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed after PFR) due 3/2/2022. [Entered: 01/06/2022 09:23:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 5
MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s); REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 01/06/2022 08:53:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 4
BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 2/9/2022, Petitioner Opening Brief due 4/11/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 6/9/2022. 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: 01/05/2022 01:20:00 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 1/5/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-22 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: 01/05/2022 01:11:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 2
AGENCY DECISION on review dated 12/8/2021. [Entered: 01/05/2022 11:40:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 01/05/2022 11:40:00 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.
