Cases 51 - 60 of 77
Bhattarai v. Barr
as 19-82
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Kabita Bhattarai
Feng v. Barr
as 19-42
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Xuexia Feng
Romero-Carrillo v. Barr
as 19-35
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Felipe Romero-Carrillo, AKA Felipe Romero, AKA Felipe Romero-Carillo
Perez v. Barr
as 19-9
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, Acting United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Junior Rafael Perez, AKA Junior Perez, AKA Junior Perez Diaz, AKA Junior R. Perez
Roldan v. Barr
as 19-12
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Jorge R. Roldan
Chen v. Barr
as 19-10
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Xiaocui Chen
Tavarez v. Whitaker
as 19-21
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Hilda De Los Angel Tavarez, AKA Chloe Tavarez, AKA Cloe Lnu
Kartiukov v. Barr
as 19-8
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, Acting United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Yevhenii Kartiukov
Xu v. Barr
as 19-11
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Hongfang Xu
Bagale v. Barr
as 19-5
Petitioner:
Dilli Ram Bagale
Respondent:
Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
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.
