Breaking News
Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Wilkinson v. Alcaraz-Enriquez

Consolidated with:

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
19-1156 9th Cir. Feb 23, 2021
TBD TBD TBD OT 2020

Issue: 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.

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 10 2020Application (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.
Feb 11 2020Application (19A891) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 20, 2020.
Mar 20 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 20, 2020)
Mar 20 2020Pursuant 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.
Apr 17 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 20, 2020 to June 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Apr 20 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 19, 2020.
Jun 19 2020Brief of respondent Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez in opposition filed.
Jul 08 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
Jul 17 2020Reply of petitioner William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Oct 02 2020Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1155 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
Oct 02 2020As 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.
Oct 02 2020Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1155. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1155. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
Dec 31 2020SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 23, 2021. VIDED.
Jan 14 2021CIRCULATED
Jan 25 2021Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Jan 28 2021Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit electronic and located on Pacer. Sealed documents in this record was filed electronically.
Feb 23 2021Argued. For petitioner: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 19-1156: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 19-1155: David J. Zimmer, Boston, Mass. VIDED.