Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 Stokes interview originated from the Federal District court case of Stokes vs. the INS in 1975. Two U.S. citizens, Charles Cook and Bernard Stokes, who married citizens of Guyana filed a suit challenging the INS procedure for determining whether to grant preferential status on the ground that the two non-citizens were "immediate relative" of U.S. citizens.
The immigration judge will set a merits hearing date when respondents file an application for relief or express to the immigration judge seeking a specific form of relief not precluded by law. The merits hearing may be a matter of days or perhaps even more than a year later, depending on the type of relief requested and the particular court's ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Hansen, a former district judge in Detroit, approved 60% of asylum cases in a five-year span — the highest rate by far among the six immigration judges at Fort Snelling for whom statistics are ...
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 ...
Voluntary departure while in removal proceedings prior to immigration court hearing. This requires the consent both of the alien and the ICE officer processing the alien. [1] Voluntary departure at the first appearance in court, i.e., during the Master Calendar Hearing. This requires the consent of the alien as well as the Immigration Judge (IJ ...
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft was a case that was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2002. The plaintiffs, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Michigan Representative John Conyers, and Rabih Haddad argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the defendants, Attorney General Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, and Immigration Judge ...