Noyola Ascencio v. Garland
Petitioner: HENRY NOYOLA ASCENCIO
Respondent: MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Case Number: 23-473
Filed: March 23, 2023
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 5, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER FILED. Petitioner's motion (Docket Entry No. 15) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due December 26, 2023. The answering brief is due January 25, 2024. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 10/05/2023 09:53 AM]
September 22, 2023 Filing 15 MOTION to Extend Time to File Opening Brief filed by Petitioner Henry Noyola Ascencio. [Entered: 09/22/2023 04:12 PM]
July 6, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER FILED. Petitioner's motion (Docket Entry No. 13) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due September 25, 2023. The answering brief is due November 24, 2023. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 07/06/2023 09:29 AM]
June 23, 2023 Filing 13 MOTION to extend time to file opening brief filed by Petitioner Henry Noyola Ascencio. [Entered: 06/23/2023 08:06 AM]
May 4, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 12 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: 05/04/2023 02:39 PM]
May 4, 2023 Filing 11 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/04/2023 12:13 PM]
April 10, 2023 Filing 10 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by DOJ Executive Office Of Immigration Review. [Entered: 04/10/2023 08:39 AM]
March 24, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect this status. The certified administrative record remains due April 27, 2023. The response to the motion for a stay of removal remains due May 18, 2023. The opening brief is due June 26, 2023. The answering brief is due August 25, 2023. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 03/24/2023 02:37 PM]
March 24, 2023 Filing 8 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Elizabeth Dewar for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/24/2023 08:30 AM]
March 24, 2023 Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Elizabeth Dewar for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/24/2023 06:22 AM]
March 23, 2023 Filing 6 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 4/27/2023, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 5/18/2023, Immigration Petitioner Opening Brief due 6/26/2023, Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due 8/25/2023. 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. 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: 03/23/2023 11:05 AM]
March 23, 2023 Filing 5 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 3/23/2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-473 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: 03/23/2023 11:02 AM]
March 23, 2023 Filing 4 MOTION to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 03/23/2023 11:01 AM]
March 23, 2023 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: 03/23/2023 11:01 AM]
March 23, 2023 Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 3/9/2023. [Entered: 03/23/2023 11:01 AM]
March 23, 2023 Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 03/23/2023 11:01 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.

Search for this case: Noyola Ascencio v. Garland
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: HENRY NOYOLA ASCENCIO
Represented By: Ms. Rosana Cheung
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Represented By: Elizabeth Dewar
Represented By: Oil
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?