Cases

Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of Ti

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL III ÁNGEL ÁLVAREZ, CERTIORARI CAMALIA VALDÉS procedente del ÁLVAREZ y JULIA PIZÁ Tribunal de ÁLVAREZ Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de PETICIONARIOS San Juan

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 22, 2018 No. 04-18-00321-CV HIGH PERFORMANCE ROPES OF AMERICA, INC., Copper Clad, S.A. de C.V., Luis Angel Alvarez Bilbao, Jose Ramon Alvarez Bilbao, Luis Enrique Alvarez Saiz, Eduardo Alvarez Saiz, Pablo Alvarez Saiz, Alumnclad de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., E M Cable International, S.A. de

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 26, 2018 No. 04-18-00321-CV HIGH PERFORMANCE ROPES OF AMERICA, INC., Copper Clad, S.A. de C.V., Luis Angel Alvarez Bilbao, Jose Ramon Alvarez Bilbao, Luis Enrique Alvarez Saiz, Eduardo Alvarez Saiz, Pablo Alvarez Saiz, Alumnclad de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., E M Cable International, S.A. de

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JOSEPH ANGEL ALVAREZ, § No. 08-24-00004-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 210th District Court THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appell

845 F.2d 1023 U.S.v.Alvarez (Angel M.) NO. 87-2073 United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. APR 05, 1988 1 Appeal From: E.D.Wis. 2 VACATED.

820 F.Supp.2d 289 (2011) Adela JOUBERT-VAZQUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Zoime ALVAREZ-RUBIO, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 11-1194 (SEC). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 24, 2011. *292 Jorge Martinez-Luciano, M.L. & R.E. Law Firm, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs. Angel E. Rotger-Sabat, Ivonne Cruz-Ser

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JOSEPH ANGEL ALVAREZ, § No. 08-24-00004-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. §

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Luis Farias Alvarez and Luisa Lorenzana Farias, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal, based on petitioners’ failure to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their

OPINION and ORDER SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior District Judge. Before the Court are defendants’ motion requesting abstention (Docket # 20), plaintiffs’ opposition thereto (Docket # 22), defendants’ reply (Docket # 31), and plaintiffs’ sur-reply (Docket # 39). For the reasons discussed below, defendants’ motion is DENIED. Factual and Procedural Background According t

OPINION & ORDER SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior District Judge. After launching a collateral attack on the Court’s determination that the Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund had failed to carry the burden of proof as to its Eleventh Amendment contentions, defendants filed a “Motion Requesting Stay of Pro*571ceedings Pending Appeal.” Docket # 93.

ACCEPTED 08-24-00004-CR 08-24-00004-CR EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 10/28/2024 5:31 PM

656 F.3d 925 (2011) Jonathan ALVAREZ; Emanuel Jiminez; Shaun McCracken; Housam Moumne; Mohammad Moumne; Kent Cochran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; Chevron USA, Inc.; Exxon Mobil Corporation; Conocophillips Company; BP Corporation North America, Inc.; BP Products North America, Inc.; BP West Coast Products, LLC; BP North American Petroleum, Inc.; Shell Oil Company; Shell

VALIHURA, Justice: The Court of Chancery initially found that Wal-Mart stockholders who were attempting to prosecute derivative claims in Delaware could no longer do so because another court, a federal court in Arkansas, had reached a final judgment on the issue of demand futility first, and the stockholders were adequately represented in that action. But the derivative plaintiffs

MEMORANDUM ** Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal and denying their motion to reopen and reconsider, which alleges ineffective assistance of prior counsel Earl Steen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176,1187 (

MEMORANDUM * Roberto Alvarez-Aceves, a legal permanent resident, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, immigrated to the United States when he was three years old, and became a legal permanent resident in 1989. On October 27, 1995, at age nineteen, Alvarez was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault under California law. Based o

*620MEMORANDUM ** Telesforo Alvarez-Ramos and his wife Herendira Alvarez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

MEMORANDUM ** Enrique Alvarez-Urias, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immi*696gration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §

MEMORANDUM** Alberto Alvarez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed upon him after he pled *921guilty to being an illegal alien who was found in the United States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We affirm. Alvarez’s sentence was based on the determination that he had committed a crime of violence prior to hi

THOMAS, Circuit Judge. Perhaps the packing plant employees in Pasco, Washington, should have heeded Henry David Thoreau’s warning to “beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.” The central dispute in this class action lawsuit is whether IBP, Inc. (“IBP”) should be required to compensate its employees for the time it takes to change into required specialized protective clothing and safety gear. Under the circumstanc