Legal Opinion
Sasetharan Arulampalam v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 1, 2005No. 02-71267PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order; Concurrence by Judge FERNANDEZ.
ORDER
When this case was last before us, petitioner Sasetharan Arulampalam’s petition for review was granted and the matter was remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.2003). On April 6, 2004, we denied respondent’s petition for rehearing. On August 9, 2004, Arulampalam filed a motion for attorney’s fees. Concerned that the motion was untimely, we requested briefing from the parties on the issue of timeliness. We now conclude that Aru-lampalam’s motion, to be timely, should…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scarborough v. PrincipiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Sasetharan Arulampalam v. John Ashcroft, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- J.H. McQuiston v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army, United States Army Missile CommandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Naseem Salman Al-Harbi v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- German L. Matthews v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2005
- Marzan v. KijakaziDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2023
- Public Utility District No. 1 v. Bonneville Power AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Sasetharan Arulampalam v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005