Search for: "Petition for Naturalization of B."
Results 21 - 40
of 2,686
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2013, 6:28 pm
Accordingly, on the basis of these findings the court adjudicated these children to be "abandoned" pursuant to SSL 384-b(5) by their natural mother. [read post]
10 Dec 2023, 5:16 pm
Our client is a naturalized US citizen and her mother came to the United States in January 2022 with a B-2 visitor’s visa from South Korea. [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 9:28 pm
Our client is a naturalized US citizen and his mother came to the United States in April 2022 with a B-2 visitor’s visa. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 3:52 pm
Our client is a naturalized US citizen and his father came to the United States in November 2019 with a B-2 visitor’s visa from the Philippines. [read post]
10 Aug 2023, 4:11 pm
Our client is a naturalized US citizen and her mother came to the United States in June 2022 with a B-2 visitor’s visa from Jamaica. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 4:02 pm
Our client is a naturalized US citizen and her mother came to the United States in December 2018 with a B-2 visitor’s visa from Albania. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 8:12 am
Our client is a naturalized US citizen, and her mother came to the United States in July 2021 with a B-2 visa from South Africa. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 9:57 am
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., to Department of Agriculture decisions holding that § 192(a) and (b) does not require a showing of injury to competition.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (6th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionAmicus brief of 55 Farming, Ranching, and Consumer OrganizationsPetitioner's reply (forthcoming) Note: Goldstein, Howe & Russell represents the petitioner in this case, which is listed without regard to… [read post]
18 May 2015, 11:27 pm
He came to the United States from the Philippines and obtained his green card in June 2005 through his family’s petition. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 7:36 pm
§ 230(b)(2). [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 7:24 am
Thus, familiarity7.b) with the FSTP-Test8) pays. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 8:00 pm
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 9:54 am
[Read the petition: 2018-10-11 0069 Petition for en banc rehearing filed by Appellants Kamran Asghari-Kamrani and Nader Asghari-Kamrani] The case at issue here stems from the CAFC’s affirmance of the lower court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal — finding that the claims of U.S. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 11:55 am
This petition seeks to undo the High 2 exemption from FOIA. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm
§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4), thereby preempting state-law claims of negligence.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (Supreme Court of Texas)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionAmicus brief for Constitutional and Administrative Law ScholarsPetitioners' reply Title: Lonberg v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 7:04 pm
Learjet, Inc. 13-271Issue: Whether the Natural Gas Act, which occupies the field as to matters within its scope, preempts state-law claims challenging industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions. [read post]
10 Jan 2023, 3:01 am
Our client is a naturalized US citizen and her father came to the United States in April 2021 on a B-2 visa. [read post]
11 May 2023, 6:26 pm
Would that be enough to satisfy the requirements of 750 ILCS 508(b) in spirit if not in exact language. [read post]
17 May 2011, 6:38 pm
BellDocket: 10-1009Issue(s): What legal standard governs the determination whether a movant alleging fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed questions of material fact? [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 9:22 am
Army Corps of EngineersDocket: 10-1059Issue(s): The court of appeals held in this case that land transfers by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to the State of South Dakota pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 did not violate §§ 605(b)(3) and (c)(1)(B) of that Act because they did not include lands within the “external boundaries” of the Yankton Sioux Reservation. [read post]
