Sanchez-Perez v. Garland
| JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ-PEREZ |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 22-887 |
| May 16, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 41 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Judah Lakin for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 08/28/2023 07:47 AM] |
| Filing 40 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Judah Lakin for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 08/25/2023 05:51 PM] |
| Filing 39 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Amalia Margarete Wille for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 08/25/2023 07:46 AM] |
| Filing 38 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Amalia Margarete Wille for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 08/24/2023 05:19 PM] |
| Filing 37 TERMINATED participation of Counsel for Petitioner Irma Perez representing Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 07/13/2023 02:27 PM] |
Filing 36
ORDER FILED. The unopposed renewed motion (Docket Entry No. 35) of Irma Perez, Esq. to withdraw as counsel for petitioner is granted. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect that petitioner is proceeding pro se. Proceedings in this petition for review remain stayed pending this courts en banc decision in De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 20-71923, or further order of this court. The Clerk will provide a copy of the pro se case opening packet, along with this order, to petitioner at: 1120 Palomar Court, Tracy, CA 95377. [Entered: 07/13/2023 02:25 PM]
|
| Filing 35 MOTION to withdraw as counsel filed by Irma Perez for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 07/12/2023 02:58 PM] |
|
Filing 34
ORDER FILED. The unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 33) of Irma Perez, Esq. to withdraw as counsel for petitioner is denied without prejudice to a renewed motion that provides petitioners address. Proceedings in this petition for review remain stayed pending this courts en banc decision in De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 20-71923, or further order of this court. [Entered: 07/12/2023 02:28 PM]
|
| Filing 33 MOTION to withdraw as counsel filed by Irma Perez for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 06/23/2023 01:36 PM] |
|
Filing 32
ORDER FILED. Proceedings in this petition for review are stayed pending this courts en banc decision in De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 20-71923, or further order of this court. [Entered: 05/23/2023 10:08 AM]
|
| Filing 31 NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco, CA. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for July 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: 03/30/2023 02:40 PM] |
| Filing 30 RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Irma Perez. [Entered: 01/27/2023 09:48 AM] |
| Filing 29 DEFECTIVE---ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Irma Perez for Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. Filed under wrong event. Correct entry#30 [Entered: 01/25/2023 07:29 PM] [Edited: 01/27/2023 09:49 AM] |
| Filing 28 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 02:52 PM] |
| Filing 27 RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Irma Perez. [Entered: 12/20/2022 02:19 PM] |
| Filing 26 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 motoin within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. [Entered: 12/19/2022 11:40 AM] |
| Filing 25 Paper copies (6) of Reply Brief submitted at DE 23 by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez received 11/14/2022. [Entered: 11/15/2022 10:21 AM] |
|
Filing 24
ORDER FILED. Reply Brief submitted at DE 23 by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Petitioner must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with gray 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: 11/07/2022 01:23 PM]
|
| Filing 23 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 11/07/2022 01:02 PM] |
| Filing 22 Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 20 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received. [Entered: 10/24/2022 03:03 PM] |
|
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: 10/18/2022 09:35 AM]
|
| Filing 20 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/17/2022 06:26 AM] |
| Filing 19 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Jeffery R. Leist for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/25/2022 10:19:00 AM] |
| Filing 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jeffery R. Leist for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 08/25/2022 06:54:00 AM] |
| Filing 17 Paper copies (6) of Opening Brief submitted at DE 15 by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez received. [Entered: 08/23/2022 02:57:00 PM] |
|
Filing 16
ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 15 by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez 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: 08/19/2022 04:28:00 PM]
|
| Filing 15 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 08/19/2022 03:36:00 PM] |
|
Filing 14
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: 07/12/2022 09:42:00 AM]
|
| Filing 13 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 07/11/2022 12:16:00 PM] |
| Filing 12 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 06/21/2022 08:17:00 AM] |
| Filing 11 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. [Entered: 05/29/2022 04:31:00 PM] |
| Filing 10 Fee Paid by Juan Carlos Sanchez-Perez. Fee Receipt Number: A09-2601766-ACMS. [Entered: 05/24/2022 02:36:00 PM] |
| Filing 9 ADDED Anthony Cardozo Payne for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/17/2022 11:39:00 AM] |
| Filing 8 ADDED Alexander Jacob Lutz for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/17/2022 11:37:00 AM] |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Anthony Cardozo Payne for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/17/2022 09:00:00 AM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Alexander Jacob Lutz for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/17/2022 08:58:00 AM] |
| Filing 5 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 6/21/2022, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 7/11/2022, Petitioner Opening Brief due 8/19/2022, Respondent Answering Brief due 10/18/2022. 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. 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: 05/16/2022 03:47:00 PM] |
| Filing 4 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 5/16/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-887 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: 05/16/2022 03:45:00 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: 05/16/2022 03:23:00 PM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 4/27/2022. [Entered: 05/16/2022 03:22:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 05/16/2022 03:22:00 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.
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.
