§

In the Matter of Cantu

17 I&N Dec. 190 (B.I.A. 1978)
In the Matter of Cantu

15 Cited authorities

  1. Woodby v. Immigration Service

    385 U.S. 276 (1966)   Cited 753 times
    Holding that "no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true"

  2. U.S. Philips Corp.

    414 U.S. 5 (1973)   Cited 202 times
    Holding that estoppel did not toll the Act's statutory deadline

  3. Afroyim v. Rusk

    387 U.S. 253 (1967)   Cited 128 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress has no authority to revoke United States citizenship

  4. Perkins v. Elg

    307 U.S. 325 (1939)   Cited 192 times
    Rejecting argument that naturalization treaty abrogated minor's right to elect citizenship on attaining majority

  5. Nishikawa v. Dulles

    356 U.S. 129 (1958)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that, in the face of congressional silence on the question, proof of an act of expatriation must be by clear and convincing evidence

  6. United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    169 U.S. 649 (1898)   Cited 303 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislative power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization reaches to the bestowal of United States citizenship upon foreigners and upon foreign-born children of United States citizens alike

  7. Fenix v. Finch

    436 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 64 times
    In Fenix v. Finch, 436 F.2d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 1971), it addressed whether to enforce a fee agreement that exceeded the new statutory maximum in a case in which the 1965 amendments did not apply. As part of its analysis, it favorably quoted the Conner discussion set forth above.

  8. Acosta v. Gaffney

    558 F.2d 1153 (3d Cir. 1977)   Cited 44 times
    Holding citizen child had standing under the APA and 8 U.S.C. § 1329 to assert a constitutional challenge to parents' removal but no constitutional right to prohibit removal

  9. Elk v. Wilkins

    112 U.S. 94 (1884)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that the Fourteenth Amendment, which makes persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population "excluding Indians not taxed," did not make an Indian a citizen of the United States

  10. Acosta v. Gaffney

    413 F. Supp. 827 (D.N.J. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    Civ. A. No. 76-709. May 12, 1976. Linda Atlas, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs. Jonathan L. Goldstein, U.S. Atty., D. N. J., by Carolyn Arch, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for defendant. OPINION STERN, District Judge. This is an action to review an order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service denying the application of plaintiffs Carlos and Beatriz Acosta for a stay of deportation. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment of the invalidity of the order of deportation and the denial of

  11. Section 1251 - Transferred

    8 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 2,159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

  12. Section 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    8 U.S.C. § 1401   Cited 469 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Granting citizenship to a child of one U.S.-citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent provided that the U.S.-citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least ten years—including at least five years after attaining the age of fourteen—before the child was born

  13. Section 1 to 18 - Repealed or Omitted

    8 U.S.C. § 1 - 8 U.S.C. § 18   Cited 45 times
    Authorizing the Attorney General to order deportation of resident alien following certain criminal convictions