Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), was an immigration decision by the United States Supreme Court.In a 6–3 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled against the federal government, holding that deportation hearing notices need to be in a single document.
Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) – The power to set rules around immigration and foreign relations rests with the federal government rather than with state governments. Hauenstein v. Lynham , 100 U.S. 483 (1879)
The National Immigration Forum is an immigrant advocacy non-profit group, [1] based in Washington, DC. It was founded by Phyllis Eisen and Rick Swartz, [2] with Swartz as the president and Eisen as the vice president. [3] The Forum uses its communications, advocacy and policy expertise to advocate for immigration, refugees and funding to ...
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept.
A 2010 study examining the years 1992 to 2009 found that when immigration issues receive national media attention (as estimated by the number of mentions of immigration by CBS, ABC and USA Today), established residents living in places that have seen influx of new immigrants suddenly become much more politicized against immigration. The study ...
Pages in category "United States immigration and naturalization case law" The following 124 pages are in this category, out of 124 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
The tug of war between BlackRock and FDIC is the latest example of rising D.C. scrutiny of BlackRock, which oversees $11 trillion in assets. For years, the financial giant has been a target of GOP ...
Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421 (1987), [ 1 ] was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v.