§
In re L-M-P

23 Cited authorities

  1. Clark v. Martinez

    543 U.S. 371 (2005)   Cited 938 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1231 does not authorize indefinite detention

  2. Stone v. INS

    514 U.S. 386 (1995)   Cited 1,094 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the IJ's removal order and the Board's denial of a motion to reopen are “two separate final orders”

  3. Bedroc Ltd. v. United States

    541 U.S. 176 (2004)   Cited 527 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means

  4. Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch

    794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015)   Cited 164 times
    Holding economic extortion not a form of persecution under immigration law

  5. Perez-Guzman v. Lynch

    835 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that "it is not unreasonable to conclude Congress intended to bar ... persons in reinstated removal proceedings [from applying for asylum] while preserving relief [that is, withholding of removal] for individuals able to meet the higher standards for withholding of removal and CAT relief"

  6. Cazun v. Attorney Gen. U.S.

    856 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2017)   Cited 35 times
    Finding that the withholding-only rule did not violate the Refugee Convention

  7. Guevara v. Gonzales

    450 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2006)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that DHS's motion to reconsider was a collateral attack on a BIA order

  8. Probert v. Family Centered Serv. of Alaska

    651 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FOH is not "a proper source of interpretive guidance" and citing the FOH's own language that "[i]t is not used as a device for establishing interpretative policy" (citing Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587)

  9. Herrera-Molina v. Holder

    597 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a premature petition for review from a non-final order of removal may be cured, and ripen into a valid petition for review, if a final order of removal has been entered by the time the petition is heard, and the respondent suffers no prejudice

  10. Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales

    469 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Finding no impermissible retroactive effect in the denial of pre-IIRIRA relief because the petitioner had not been in the United States long enough to qualify for the relief at the time of IIRIRA's passage

  11. Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed

    8 U.S.C. § 1231   Cited 7,955 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver

  12. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,400 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”

  13. Section 1208.31 - Reasonable fear of persecution or torture determinations involving aliens ordered removed under section 238(b) of the Act and aliens whose removal is reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act

    8 C.F.R. § 1208.31   Cited 197 times
    Allowing an alien with a reinstated removal order to apply for withholding of removal

  14. Section 1208.2 - Jurisdiction

    8 C.F.R. § 1208.2   Cited 77 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Limiting withholding proceedings to a determination of eligibility for "withholding or deferral of removal," and noting that all parties are barred from "raising or considering any other issues"

  15. Section 1241.8 - Reinstatement of removal orders

    8 C.F.R. § 1241.8   Cited 29 times

    (a)Applicability. An alien who illegally reenters the United States after having been removed, or having departed voluntarily, while under an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal shall be removed from the United States by reinstating the prior order. The alien has no right to a hearing before an immigration judge in such circumstances. In establishing whether an alien is subject to this section, the immigration officer shall determine the following: (1) Whether the alien has been subject to