Cases 31 - 40 of 870
Romero Cardoza, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2
Petitioner:
CESAR ADALBERTO ROMERO CARDOZA, HELEN ROXANA JORGE CALDERON and MATEO SEBASTIAN ROMERO JORGE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Rudy Calderon Recinos v. Merrick B. Garland
as 23-3712
Petitioner:
Rudy Elias Calderon Recinos
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Calderon-Lopez De Rodriguez, et al. v. Garland
as 23-4151
Petitioner:
DARLIN XIOMARA CALDERON-LOPEZ DE RODRIGUEZ, JEFERSON LEONEL RODRIGUEZ-CALDERON and DILAND ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ-CALDERON
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Coronel-Martinez v. Garland
as 23-7968
Petitioner:
CELSO FABIAN CORONEL-MARTINEZ, NOEMI CLEMENTINA CALDERON-GONZALEZ and ALEXIS FABIAN CORONEL-CALDERON
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Martinez-De Calderon, et al. v. Garland
as 23-3845
Petitioner:
ELSA NOHEMY MARTINEZ-DE CALDERON, MELANIE MICHELLE MARTINEZ-CALDERON and JIMMY ANTONIO CALDERON-MARTINEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
United States of America v. Calderon
as 23-6058
Not Yet Classified:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JOSE CALDERON
Calderon et al v. Garland et al
as 1:2023cv14713
Plaintiff:
Briceida Kayranee Calderon and Efren Huitron Franco
Defendant:
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Secretary of DHS Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of USCIS Ur Mendoza Jaddou and others
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition
Calderon-Sanchez v. Garland
as 22-2006
Petitioner:
CARLOS ALEXANDER CALDERON-SANCHEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
In Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases
as 5:2022cv07557
Plaintiff:
John Does 1-100, M.D. JANE DOE, John Doe and others
Defendant:
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Interested Party:
Katrina Calderon, Danielle Calderon and Google LLC
Not Classified By Court:
Justin Hunt
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.
