Cases 21 - 30 of 46
Arana v. Barr
as 20-2133
Respondent:
Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, United States Department of Homeland Security, Acting Director Matthew Albence, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director Thomas Decker, New York Field Office Director for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others
Petitioner:
Pedro Arana
Arana v. Barr
as 20-2080
Respondent / Appellee:
Acting Director Matthew Albence, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Director Thomas Decker, New York Field Office Director for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
Pedro Arana
Reid v. Decker
as 20-1462
Respondent:
Attorney General William P. Barr, as Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf, as Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Director James McHenry, as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review and others
Petitioner:
Everod Reid
Sophia v. Decker
as 20-1255
Respondent:
James McHenry, as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, William P. Barr, as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Chad F. Wolf, as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and others
Petitioner:
Naishel Sophia
Cruz v. Decker
as 20-356
Respondent:
James McHenry, as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Thomas R. Decker, as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others
Petitioner:
Wilder Cruz
O.A., et al v. Donald Trump, et al
as 19-5272
Defendant / Appellant:
L. Francis Cissna, as Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kevin K. McAleenan, as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 18cv2838 and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Refugee and Immigrant Center For Education and Legal Services, Inc., 18cv2838, G.Z., D.S. and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 19-1900
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Amicus Curiae:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al v. William Barr, et al
as 19-16773
Defendant / Appellant:
MATTHEW ALBENCE, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity, JOHN P. SANDERS, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER, INNOVATION LAW LAB, EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT and others
Amicus Curiae:
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICALS, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE and others
Cesar Luna-Flores, et al v. USDHS, et al
as 19-56020
Respondent / Appellee:
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of DHS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
E. G. LUNA-BRAVO, a minor, by and through her mother and Next Friend, Melva Eliu Bravo-Morales, C. LOPEZ-LUNA, minors, by and through their mother and Next Friend Rosario Luna-Flores, ALICIA LUNA-FLORES and others
Reid, et al v. Donelan, et al
as 19-1787
Respondent / Appellee:
JAMES MCHENRY, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, CHRISTOPHER J. DONELAN, Sheriff, Franklin County, Massachusetts and others
Interested Party:
JOHN HAWKINSON
Petitioner / Appellant:
LEO FELIX CHARLES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, ROBERT WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and MARK ANTHONY REID
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.
