Cases 1 - 10 of 820
Francis Flores Faustino v. Irene Martin, et al
as 23-55792
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FRANCIS JOSEPH FLORES FAUSTINO
Defendant / Appellee:
IRENE MARTIN, San Bernardino Field Office District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Joseph Brady v. Matt Grimm, et al
as 23-55359
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSEPH BRADY
Defendant / Appellee:
MATT GRIMM, Chief Operating Officer, Anuril Industries, ANURIL INDUSTRIES, a California Limited Liability Company, Irvine, California, LESLIE GARDNER, as Executive Director of the San Diego Law Enforcement Coordination Center Carlsbad, California, in her official capacity and in her personal capacity and others
Donis Munoz v. Garland
as 23-265
Petitioner:
ELBA ROSALBA DONIS MUNOZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Sanchez Zepeda, et al. v. Garland
as 23-53
Petitioner:
MARIA LOURDES SANCHEZ ZEPEDA, S. G.S. and V. G.S.
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Antonio Gonzalez v. Garland
as 23-52
Petitioner:
AMOS ANTONIO GONZALEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Valencia-Cortez v. Garland
as 22-2054
Petitioner:
ODILIA ELIZABETH VALENCIA-CORTEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Zavalza-Olleva v. Garland
as 22-2032
Petitioner:
JUAN ZAVALZA-OLLEVA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Renteria de la Rosa v. Garland
as 22-2012
Petitioner:
JOSE MANUEL RENTERIA DE LA ROSA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ndoma Alfred v. Garland
as 22-1994
Petitioner:
LOMANI NDOMA ALFRED
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Vargas Trejo v. Garland
as 22-1991
Petitioner:
JUAN ANTONIO VARGAS TREJO
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. 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.
