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.
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.
Composed of 21 members appointed by the attorney general, BIA decisions are generally decided by panels of three of its members. [18] Unlike courts of appeals in the state and federal systems, the BIA rarely holds oral arguments on appeals. [19] Instead, the BIA conducts a "paper review" of the materials, before issuing a written decision.
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.
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.
Mata appealed the BIA's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Reyes Mata v. Holder.He argued that the receipt of ineffective counsel deprived him of his due process rights, which should have preempted the untimeliness of his motion, entitling him to equitable tolling of time.
Under BIA precedent, the political aspect of the offense must outweigh its common-law character. As the activity Aguirre had participated in on behalf of the Estudeante Syndicado disproportionately affected civilians, the criminal aspect of his activities outweighed their political aspect. Aguirre asked the Ninth Circuit to review the BIA's ...
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving whether the bar to asylum in the United States for persecutors applies to asylum applicants who have been the target of credible threats of harm or torture in their home countries for refusing to participate further in persecution. [1]