Castillo Martinez, et al. v. Garland
| ROBERTO GENARO CASTILLO MARTINEZ and ONDINA ARACELY SAGASTUME MOLINA |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 23-680 |
| April 17, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER FILED. (Bridget S. BADE, Kenneth K. LEE, Lawrence VANDYKE) Petitioners seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissing their appeal. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing petitioners appeal where their notice of appeal failed to identify specific reasons for challenging the immigration judges decision, and where petitioners indicated on their notice of appeal that a separate written brief would be filed, but they failed to do so. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary dismissal appropriate where notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no separate written brief was filed). The motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted because the questions on review are too insubstantial 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. [Entered: 09/28/2023 09:38 AM]
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for summary disposition filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 05/22/2023 10:05 AM] |
| Filing 8 MAIL RETURNED. Resending to: 12901 Louvre Street, Pacoima, CA 91331. [Entered: 05/09/2023 03:10 PM] |
| Filing 7 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by DOJ Executive Office Of Immigration Review. [Entered: 05/08/2023 11:42 AM] |
| Filing 6 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Colin J. Tucker for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 04/18/2023 10:23 AM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Colin J. Tucker for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 04/18/2023 10:06 AM] |
| Filing 4 FEE PAID by Petitioner(s). (Receipt # 4709005746) [Entered: 04/17/2023 04:09 PM] |
| Filing 3 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 5/22/2023, Immigration Petitioner Opening Brief due 7/21/2023, Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due 9/19/2023. 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: 04/17/2023 04:07 PM] |
| Filing 2 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 4/17/2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-680 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: 04/17/2023 04:05 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 04/17/2023 04:04 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.
