Cases 101 - 110 of 1,204
Matos v. Garland
as 20-3381
Petitioner:
JESUS TURBI MATOS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL and WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Santos Abreu v. Barr
as 20-3391
Respondent:
Thomas Feeley, Field Office Director for Dentention and Removal, Buffalo Field Office, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jeffrey Searls, Facility Acting Director Buffalo Federal Detention Facility and William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Jose Frank Santos Abreu
De La Rosa v. Barr
as 20-3398
Petitioner:
Wander Duran De La Rosa
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General, Jeffrey Searls, Facility Director, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility and Thomas Feeley, Field Director for Detention and Removal, Buffalo Field Office, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Simms v. Barr
as 20-3321
Petitioner:
Owen Oliver Simms
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Lezama-Martinez v. Barr
as 20-3318
Petitioner:
Cinthia Karolina Lezama-Martinez and Carlos Alexander Portillo-Lezama
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Zheng v. Barr
as 20-3333
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Ling Xiao Zheng
Lucero Pina v. Barr
as 20-3348
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Petitioner:
Juan Jose Lucero Pina
Lopez-Cruz v. Barr
as 20-3308
Petitioner:
Gabriela Sofia Portillo-Lopez, Ronald Alejandro Portillo-Lopez and Lucia De La Paz Lopez-Cruz
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Guirand v. Barr
as 20-3296
Petitioner:
Jean Luc Guirand
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General
Ahmed v. Barr
as 20-3309
Petitioner:
Razon Ahmed
Respondent:
William P. Barr, United States 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.
