Retana-Estrada, et al. v. Garland
| ANAISELA RETANA-ESTRADA and JOSE LUIS MEDINA-TAVIRA |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 23-2140 |
| September 8, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
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: 10/24/2023 12:14 PM]
|
| Filing 13 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION to Motion to Stay Removal (DE 12) filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/24/2023 11:06 AM] |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Stay Removal filed by Petitioner Anaisela Retana-Estrada, Petitioner Jose Luis Medina-Tavira. REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 10/24/2023 09:58 AM] |
| Filing 11 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Luciana Galarza [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:50 PM] |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Luciana Galarza for Petitioner Anaisela Retana-Estrada, Petitioner Jose Luis Medina-Tavira. [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:48 PM] |
| Filing 9 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by DOJ Executive Office Of Immigration Review. [Entered: 09/21/2023 09:13 AM] |
| Filing 8 Fee Paid by Anaisela Retana-Estrada, Jose Luis Medina-Tavira. Fee Receipt Number: A09-2604095-ACMS. [Entered: 09/14/2023 02:59 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: 09/14/2023 01:41 PM]
|
| Filing 6 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Sarah E. Witri [Entered: 09/08/2023 10:43 AM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sarah E. Witri for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 09/08/2023 10:17 AM] |
| Filing 4 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 10/13/2023, Immigration Petitioner Opening Brief due 12/12/2023, Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due 2/12/2024. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1 [Entered: 09/08/2023 09:25 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 9/8/2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-2140 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: 09/08/2023 09:23 AM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 8/16/2023. [Entered: 09/08/2023 09:23 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 09/08/2023 09:23 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.
