Murillo Benitez v. Blanche
| VICTOR MURILLO BENITEZ |
| TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 26-6261 |
| September 25, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER FILED. Petitioner may file an optional supplemental letter brief of no more than ten pages. Any supplemental opening brief is due October 28, 2026. If petitioner does not file an optional supplemental brief, the case will proceed on the original opening brief. The answering brief is due December 28, 2026. The optional reply is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. [Entered: 09/28/2026 11:24 AM]
|
| Filing 9 LEGACY TRANSFER DOCKET SHEET. See CM/ECF Docket Sheet for Case 20-73821. [Entered: 09/25/2026 10:55 AM] |
| Filing 8 LEGACY TRANSFER ORDER FILED. This case was originally opened in CM/ECF under docket number 20-73821 and was administratively closed on 2/23/2022. This case has been reopened in ACMS under docket number 26-6261. The motion to reopen this administratively closed petition for review is granted. The filings entered before this docket entry are some selected filings that have been migrated to case 26-6261. All future filings must only be made in ACMS case 26-6261 and must include both case numbers using the caption above. Briefing will be set by further court order. [Entered: 09/25/2026 10:53 AM] |
| Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Respondent Merrick B. Garland Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion to Reopen Case After Judicial Administrative Closure]. Date of service: 08/15/2025. [12936206] [20-73821] (Blaya, Robbin) [Entered: 08/15/2025 04:19 AM |
| Filing 6 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Pursuant to respondents unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. [22]), the Clerk will close this courts docket for administrative purposes until further order of the court. This order is not a decision on the merits and has no impact on any stay of removal. No mandate will issue, and at any time any party may request that this immigration petition be reopened, or the court may reopen the petition sua sponte. Within 14 days after a determination at the agency level that petitioner is eligible for discretionary relief, the parties are expected to file a motion to remand. The parties may request a referral to mediation at any time it might benefit the case. [12378157] (AF) [Entered: 02/23/2022 03:05 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order: The opening brief [19] submitted by Victor Murillo Benitez is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 6 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: blue. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. [12343566] (KWG) [Entered: 01/18/2022 03:16 PM |
| Filing 4 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Petitioner Victor Murillo Benitez. Date of service: 01/18/2022. [12342695] [2073821] (Marchi, Nicholas) [Entered: 01/18/2022 10:20 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Certified Administrative Record by Executive Office of Immigration Review. [11995333] [2073821] (Executive Office for Immigration Review, DOJ) [Entered: 02/08/2021 08:12 AM] |
| 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 12/30/2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-6261 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: 09/25/2026 10:36 AM] |
| Filing 1 LEGACY TRANSFER. FILED BIA Petition for Review. PRO SE. Petitioner detained? Unknown. Certified Administrative Record due 02/03/2021. Petitioner opening brief due 04/05/2021 for Victor Murillo Benitez. Respondent brief due 06/03/2021 for Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting Attorney General. Petitioner optional reply brief is due 21 days from service of respondent brief. (No BIA decision) [11948800][COURT UPDATE: New Documents Attached, resent NDA,[Edited 12/31/2020 by BY] (JMR) [Entered: 12/30/2020 01:32 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.
| Search for this case: Murillo Benitez v. Blanche | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: VICTOR MURILLO BENITEZ | |
| Represented By: | Nicholas W. Marchi |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| Represented By: | Oil |
| Represented By: | Ms. Robbin Kinmonth Blaya |
| 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 | [ 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.
