Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Board of Immigration Appeals traces its origins to the Immigration Act of 1891, which was the first comprehensive federal law that governed the immigration system.The Act established an Office of Immigration within the Department of the Treasury, which would be supervised by a Superintendent of Immigration and responsible for handling immigration functions.
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 ]
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the Homeland Security Department approved only to revoke the approval later, stating that her husband had entered into a previous “sham marriage” to stay in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the revocation of the visa application for permanent legal residence.
Of the USCIS immigration forms, decisions on the two forms Form I-130 (family-based immigration, the F and IR categories) and the widower subcategory for Form I-360 (special immigrants, the EB-4 category), must be appealed through the EOIR-29 (Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of an Immigration Officer) to the ...
The rules surrounding it were only articulated in Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions. Some important decisions were: [3] Matter of Vargas-Molina (1971) recognized that an Immigration Judge (IJ) could discretionarily allow an alien to withdraw the application for admission during removal proceedings.
Vartelas subsequently filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The motion to reopen "claimed that Vartelas' prior counsel was ineffective having failed to raise the issue of whether 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) could be applied retroactively."
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the immigration judge's ruling on appeal. [9] Oral arguments in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dimaya's lawyers appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the Ninth Circuit was hearing this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in ...