Cases 1 - 10 of 31
L v. Decker
as 24-718
Petitioner:
J L
Respondent:
THOMAS DECKER, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, in his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Muzumala v. Mayorkas
as 24-157
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSHUA MUZUMALA
Defendant / Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, (ICE)
Defendant:
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and TAE JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Muzumala v. Mayorkas et al
as 1:2022cv03789
Plaintiff:
Joshua Muzumala
Defendant:
Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 dj Declaratory Judgment
Mathon v. Barr
as 21-3038
Petitioner:
Frantz Mathon
Respondent:
William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Thomas E. Feeley, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security and others
Sylvain v. Garland
as 21-2897
Petitioner / Appellant:
Colby Sylvain
Respondent / Appellee:
Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as Attorney General, of the United States, Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Jean King, in her official capacity as director of the Executive Office Of Immigration Review and others
Reyes v. Neal
as 21-2615
Petitioner:
Jose Mauricio Reyes
Respondent:
Jean King, Acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Garry D. Malphrus, as Member, Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Edward F. Kelly, as Member, Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review and others
Guodoy Arana v. Decker
as 21-296
Respondent:
Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Robert M. Wilkinson, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice and others
Petitioner:
Mercedes Guodoy Arana
Rodriguez v. Garland
as 21-272
Respondent / Appellee:
Thomas E. Feeley, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as 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 and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
Nelson Sosa Rodriguez
Hylton v. Decker
as 21-145
Respondent:
Director Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson, in his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice and others
Petitioner:
Gabrae Hylton
Martinez Roman v. Decker
as 20-3974
Respondent:
Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, New York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement and William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Petitioner:
Marco Antonio Martinez Roman
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.
