Cases 41 - 50 of 61
Ruddock v. Wolf
as 20-2140
Respondent / Appellee:
Jeffrey Searls, in his official capacity as Administrator, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of the Executive Secretary and Thomas E. Feeley, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U. S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Petitioner / Appellant:
Kevin Ruddock
Basank v. Decker
as 20-1966
Petitioner:
Milton Barbecho, Vasif Basank, "Vincent", Job Velasquez Estrada and others
Respondent:
Director Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Director of the New York Field Office of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement and Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Rosemond v. Decker
as 20-1825
Respondent:
Director Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Attorney General William P. Barr, n his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and others
Petitioner:
Jean Rosemond
Mathurin v. Barr
as 20-1810
Respondent:
Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Jeffrey Searls, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Field Office Director and Administrator, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Thomas E. Feeley, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement and others
Petitioner:
Ravely Junior Mathurin
Guerrero v. Decker
as 20-1615
Petitioner:
Domingo Guerrero
Respondent:
Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
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
Cabanillas Lazo v. Decker
as 20-1140
Respondent:
Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice and Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Petitioner:
Jim Marco Cabanillas Lazo
Medley v. Decker
as 20-631
Defendant / Appellant:
Chad F. Wolf, as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, Thomas Decker, as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity and William P. Barr, as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in his official capacity
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Leon Leonard Medley
Thomas v. Decker
as 19-4228
Respondent / Appellee:
Thomas R. Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice and Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jahema Antonio Thomas
Liranzo de la Cruz v. Decker
as 19-3831
Not Yet Classified:
Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Kevin K. McAleenan, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Liranzo de la Cruz and others
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.
