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.
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]
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 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.
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.
Immigration decisions may be appealed by either side with the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the BIA does not generally accept new evidence regarding the original case, but instead, simply aims to determine whether the previous court made an incorrect judgment based on the law or the facts available to it at that time.
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.
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.