§
In re Vargas

22 Cited authorities

  1. Henderson v. Shinseki

    562 U.S. 428 (2011)   Cited 1,639 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be "clear indication that Congress wanted the rule to be jurisdictional," although Congress "need not use magic words" (cleaned up)

  2. Pereira v. Sessions

    138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018)   Cited 1,073 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an NTA that omitted the "time or place of the removal proceedings" failed to comply with the requirements of § 239 and was insufficient to trigger the so-called "stop-time rule" of INA § 240A(d)

  3. Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. Eng'rs

    558 U.S. 67 (2009)   Cited 376 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding administrative agency cannot adopt "jurisdictional" rules absent direct statutory authorization

  4. Karingithi v. Whitaker

    913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019)   Cited 361 times
    Holding that Pereira's analysis is "distinct from the jurisdictional question" at issue

  5. Pierre-Paul v. Barr

    930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019)   Cited 222 times
    Holding Pereira limited to the narrow stop-time rule context

  6. Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1229 "sets forth only a claim-processing rule" and that a defective notice to appear does not deprive an immigration judge of jurisdiction

  7. Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr

    924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019)   Cited 75 times
    Finding no prejudice

  8. United States v. Cortez

    930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that failure of notice to appear to include a date and time for petitioner's removal hearing "does not implicate the immigration court's adjudicatory authority or 'jurisdiction'"

  9. Lopez-Munoz v. Barr

    941 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2019)   Cited 32 times
    In Lopez-Munoz, we assumed arguendo that the NTA was defective because it omitted the time and place of the removal hearing.

  10. Lopez v. Barr

    925 F.3d 396 (9th Cir. 2019)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that a defective notice to appear cannot be cured

  11. Section 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1326   Cited 31,931 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Defining offense elements

  12. Section 1229 - Initiation of removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229   Cited 1,381 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing service by mail

  13. Section 1003.14 - Jurisdiction and commencement of proceedings

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.14   Cited 489 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that removal proceedings commence "when a charging document is filed with the Immigration court"

  14. Section 1003.15 - Contents of the order to show cause and notice to appear and notification of change of address

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.15   Cited 246 times
    Listing information that must be included in a notice to appear

  15. Section 1003.18 - Docket management

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.18   Cited 134 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring the NTA to include time, date, and place information only "where practicable"

  16. Section 1003.20 - Change of venue

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.20   Cited 34 times
    Stating that an IJ can “change venue only upon motion by one of the parties”

  17. Section 1003.12 - Scope of rules

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.12   Cited 7 times

    These rules are promulgated to assist in the expeditious, fair, and proper resolution of matters coming before Immigration Judges. Except where specifically stated, the rules in this subpart apply to matters before Immigration Judges, including, but not limited to, deportation, exclusion, removal, bond, rescission, departure control, asylum proceedings, and disciplinary proceedings under this part 3. The sole procedures for review of credible fear determinations by Immigration Judges are provided

  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