Ramirez v. Blanche
| RICARDO RAFAEL RAMIREZ |
| PAMELA BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL and TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 25-7117 |
| November 12, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 8, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 Respondent Pamela Bondi substituted by Todd Blanche effective 04/08/2026. [Entered: 04/08/2026 01:17 PM] |
| Filing 24 TEXT ORDER FILED. The unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 23) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due June 2, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. [Entered: 03/31/2026 04:45 PM] |
| Filing 23 MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Respondent Pamela Bondi. [Entered: 03/30/2026 02:32 PM] |
| Filing 22 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 21 by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 03/06/2026 02:48 PM] |
| Filing 21 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez.--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF of brief attached as of 3/6/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 03/04/2026 09:30 PM] [Edited: 03/06/2026 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 20 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Maleha Nasar Khan-Avila [Entered: 03/04/2026 10:41 AM] |
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Maleha Nasar Khan-Avila for Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez. [Entered: 03/03/2026 09:29 PM] |
Filing 18
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 17) denied. Filer requested a previous extension of time. The filer must file a motion per 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(b). [Entered: 02/09/2026 12:21 PM]
|
| Filing 17 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez. [Entered: 02/06/2026 06:24 PM] |
|
Filing 16
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 14) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Opening Brief Due (Petitioner) 3/4/2026, Answering Brief Due (Respondent) 4/3/2026. 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: 01/26/2026 10:34 AM]
|
| Filing 15 REPLY to Opposition to Motion to Stay Removal (DE 13) filed by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez. [Entered: 01/26/2026 09:38 AM] |
| Filing 14 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez. [Entered: 01/23/2026 10:15 PM] |
| Filing 13 OPPOSITION to Motion to Stay Removal (DE 3) filed by Respondent Pamela Bondi. [Entered: 01/12/2026 02:35 PM] |
| Filing 12 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review. [Entered: 11/24/2025 09:08 AM] |
|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted. The certified administrative record remains due December 22, 2025. The response to the motion for a stay of removal remains due January 12, 2026. The opening brief is due February 2, 2026. The answering brief is due March 2, 2026. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 11/20/2025 01:58 PM]
|
| Filing 10 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Roberta O. Roberts [Entered: 11/12/2025 01:11 PM] |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Roberta O. Roberts for Respondent Pamela Bondi. [Entered: 11/12/2025 10:33 AM] |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Roberta O. Roberts for Respondent Pamela Bondi. [Entered: 11/12/2025 09:33 AM] |
| Filing 7 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due (Respondent) 12/22/2025, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due (Respondent) 1/12/2026, Immigration Petitioner Opening Brief due (Petitioner) 2/2/2026, Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due (Respondent) 3/2/2026. 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: 11/12/2025 07:51 AM] |
| Filing 6 Under General Order 6.4, a temporary stay of removal is in effect until further order of the court. [Entered: 11/12/2025 07:48 AM] |
| 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 11/10/2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-7117 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: 11/12/2025 07:48 AM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez. [Entered: 11/12/2025 07:46 AM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 11/12/2025 07:46 AM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 10/14/2025. [Entered: 11/12/2025 07:46 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner Ricardo Rafael Ramirez. [Entered: 11/12/2025 07:46 AM] |
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.
