Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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-time ...
Immigration judges adjudicate hearings under Section 240 of the INA. [15] Immigration judges, unlike Article III judges, do not have life tenure, and are not appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate as required by the Appointments Clause in Article II. Instead, they are civil servants appointed by the attorney general. [15]
(The Center Square) – A unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court may pave the way for challenges to a federal deportation plan under the incoming Trump administration to be defeated.
The immigration court backlog has surged to 3.6 million cases. There are roughly 600 judges in 68 courts. There are roughly 600 judges in 68 courts. The plan announced Thursday would not include ...
It will mark the first court appearance since the former working royal's visa status was thrust into doubt following the release of his tell-all memoir, "Spare," in 2023.
As part of his immigration policy, United States President Donald Trump had sought to limit foreigners from certain countries from traveling into the U.S.On January 27, 2017, he signed Executive Order 13769 (EO 13769), which banned entry to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days regardless of their visa status, and suspended the United States Refugee ...
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border and that the checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.