No. 19-1155
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General v. Ming Dai
Amici (1)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: asylum-application board-of-immigration-appeals court-of-appeals credibility-determination immigration-judge immigration-law ins-v-ventura judicial-review remand-rule removal-proceedings ventura
Key Terms:
Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant's testimony is credible and true
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination. 2. Whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam), when it determined in the first instance that respondent was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal. (I)
Docket Entries
2021-07-06
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2021-01-28
Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit electronic and located on Pacer. Sealed documents in this record was filed electronically.
2021-01-25
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
2021-01-14
CIRCULATED
2021-01-04
Brief of respondent Ming Dai filed (19-1155).
2021-01-04
Brief of respondent Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez filed (19-1156).
2020-10-02
As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.
2020-07-17
Reply of petitioner William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
2020-07-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-19
Brief of respondent Ming Dai in opposition filed.
2020-04-20
Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.
2020-04-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 19, 2020.
2020-04-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 20, 2020 to June 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-02-07
Application (19A781) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 20, 2020.
2020-02-07
Application (19A781) to extend further the time from February 19, 2020 to March 20, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2020-01-10
Application (19A781) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 20, 2020 to February 19, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2020-01-10
Application (19A781) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 19, 2020.
2020-01-10
Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.
Attorneys
American Immigration Lawyers Association and National Immigrant Justice Center
Ilana Hope Eisenstein — DLA Piper LLP (US), Amicus
Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez (No. 19-1156)
Neal Kumar Katyal — Hogan Lovells US LLP, Respondent
Immigration Reform Law Institute
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Petitioner
Ming Dai
David J. Zimmer — Goodwin Proctor LLP, Respondent
Refugee Advocacy Organizations
Zachary Charles Schauf — Jenner & Block, LLP, Amicus
Thirty-Five Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Richard W. Mark — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Amicus