§
In re R-C-R

28 Cited authorities

  1. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 16,115 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny

  2. Rusu v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

    296 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2002)   Cited 314 times
    Holding that alien must show prejudice to establish a procedural due process violation and court "may only find prejudice when the rights of an alien have been transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceedings" (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)

  3. Vilchez v. Holder

    682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 132 times
    Holding that we lack jurisdiction to review “the merits of a discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal” but retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional questions

  4. Hartooni v. I.N.S.

    21 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 201 times
    Holding that "[e]ven if the interpretation was incompetent, [the petitioner] must show that the incompetence prejudiced the outcome of her hearing"

  5. Garza-Moreno v. Gonzales

    489 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure

  6. Santos-Alvarado v. Barr

    967 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2020)   Cited 44 times

    No. 19-60432 07-21-2020 Kevin Noe SANTOS-ALVARADO, also known as Alvarado Kevin Santos, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Ruben Tyler Kendrick, Perkins Coie, L.L.P., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Andrew Nathan O'Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kimberly Ann Burdge, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent. JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge Ruben Tyler Kendrick

  7. Okpala v. Whitaker

    908 F.3d 965 (5th Cir. 2018)   Cited 42 times

    No. 17-60391 11-15-2018 Okey Garry OKPALA, also known as Okechukwu Oguejifor Okpala, Petitioner v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent Okey Garry Okpala, Pro Se. Lisa Joan Morinelli, Margot Lynne Nadel Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent. CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge Okey Garry Okpala, Pro Se. Lisa Joan Morinelli, Margot Lynne Nadel Carter, Trial Attorney, Office

  8. Rapheal v. Mukasey

    533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 56 times
    Finding that applicant was not entitled under the statute because to find otherwise "would add to the already overburdened resources of the DHS, and such an approach would seem imprudent where the law clearly notifies aliens of the importance of corroborative evidence."

  9. Luziga v. Attorney Gen. U. S.

    937 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2019)   Cited 36 times
    In Luziga, the Third Circuit vacated a particularly serious crime finding after the IJ "failed to first consider the elements of [the] offense," and the BIA "stated that it would consider the 'elements' of Luziga's offense, [but] listed as 'elements' specific offense characteristics such as loss amount."

  10. Bouchikhi v. Holder

    676 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    Stating that to prevail on a due process claim, an alien must show substantial prejudice arising from the alleged violation

  11. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,949 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  12. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,435 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 1324d - Civil penalties for failure to depart

    8 U.S.C. § 1324d   Cited 16 times
    Providing civil penalties for similar conduct

  14. Section 1003.2 - Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2   Cited 7,821 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting power to Board

  15. Section 1003.29 - Continuances

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.29   Cited 664 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing continuances

  16. Section 1003.31 - Filing documents and applications

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.31   Cited 206 times
    Allowing parties to file documents before the immigration court

  17. Section 1003.25 - Form of the proceeding

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.25   Cited 61 times

    (a)Waiver of presence of the parties. The Immigration Judge may, for good cause, and consistent with section 240(b) of the Act, waive the presence of the alien at a hearing when the alien is represented or when the alien is a minor child at least one of whose parents or whose legal guardian is present. When it is impracticable by reason of an alien's mental incompetency for the alien to be present, the presence of the alien may be waived provided that the alien is represented at the hearing by an

  18. Section 1003.11 - Administrative control Immigration Courts

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.11   Cited 5 times

    An administrative control Immigration Court is one that creates and maintains Records of Proceedings for Immigration Courts within an assigned geographical area. All documents and correspondence pertaining to a Record of Proceeding shall be filed with the Immigration Court having administrative control over that Record of Proceeding and shall not be filed with any other Immigration Court. A list of the administrative control Immigration Courts with their assigned geographical areas will be made available

  19. Section 1003.36 - Record of proceeding

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.36   Cited 2 times

    The Immigration Court shall create and control the Record of Proceeding. 8 C.F.R. §1003.36 52 FR 2936, Jan. 29, 1987. Redesignated at 57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34089, June 30, 1995

  20. Section 280.53 - Civil monetary penalties inflation adjustment

    8 C.F.R. § 280.53   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Statutory authority. In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410 , 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74 , Sec. 701, 129 Stat . 599, the civil monetary penalties listed in paragraph (b) of this section are adjusted as provided in paragraph (b). (b)Adjustment of penalties. For violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, the penalty