No. 19-1156
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General v. Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez
Tags: administrative-adjudication administrative-law appellate-procedure appellate-review credibility credibility-determination due-process immigration-law judicial-review standard-of-review withholding-of-removal
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Securities Immigration Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
HabeasCorpus Securities Immigration Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant's testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding of removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding of removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination. (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
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 Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez in opposition filed.
2020-04-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 19, 2020.
2020-04-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 20, 2020 to June 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-03-20
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.
2020-03-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 20, 2020)
2020-02-11
Application (19A891) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 20, 2020.
2020-02-10
Application (19A891) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 20, 2020 to March 20, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
American Immigration Lawyers Association and National Immigrant Justice Center
Ilana Hope Eisenstein — DLA Piper LLP (US), Amicus
Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez
Neal Kumar Katyal — Hogan Lovells US LLP, Respondent
Robert Bradford Jobe — Respondent
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Petitioner