Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Currently there are 3.6 million cases pending before immigration judges, the largest number of such cases in the history of the American immigration system. That is a 44% increase from the 2.5 ...
The ruling could also have a bearing on roughly 200,000 deportation cases that were thrown out by immigration judges because the Department of Homeland Security didn’t file paperwork with the ...
Immigration court judges will have to follow the precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals because it is binding, unless a federal appeals court or the U.S. Attorney General says otherwise.
The respondents in this case were deported by the federal government and later reentered the country, claiming asylum. They then sought release from detention via bond hearings. The district court sided with their claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, over the dissent of Judge Julius N. Richardson. The ...
Pereira v. Sessions, Attorney General, no. 17-459, 585 U.S (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding immigration.In an 8-1 majority, the Court reversed a lower court’s decision by ruling that a Notice to Appear which does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for a removal proceeding is not valid under 8 U.S. Code § 1229(b) and therefore does not trigger the stop ...
The spokesperson said Salazar-Hinojosa failed to show up to the Oct. 9 hearing and was ordered removed by a judge with the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review. DOJ did not ...
Campos-Chaves v. Garland (Docket No. 22-674) was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States.The case asks whether the government may comply with its obligations under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) and (2) when it provides an initial notice to appear with a date and location "to be determined" and a subsequent notice with that information included.
Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) – Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.