Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an administrative appellate body within the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the United States Department of Justice responsible for reviewing decisions of the U.S. immigration courts and certain actions of U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, U.S Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The Court ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals' "comparable-grounds rule" was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The rule was used by the agency to determine the eligibility for discretionary relief of a long-term resident alien facing deportation for a past criminal conviction.
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is the body to whom litigants may appeal their decisions from immigration judges. Composed of 21 members appointed by the attorney general, BIA decisions are generally decided by panels of three of its members. [18]
Petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed and denied, No. 21-3166 (3rd Cir. 2022) Holding; Federal courts have the jurisdiction to review the determinations of immigration judges as a mixed question of law. Court membership; Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
In 2006, an immigration judge denied Vartelas' application for waiver and ordered Vartelas removed to Greece. Vartelas made a timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the board dismissed. [5] Vartelas subsequently filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Boika v. Holder, 727 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2013), is a precedent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing an alien's motion to reopen after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the convention against torture.
Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca. [1] In Aguirre-Aguirre, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.