Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In the Matter of Lin

4 Citing cases

  1. Singh v. Attorney Gen. of United States

    12 F.4th 262 (3d Cir. 2021)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that noncitizens who were naturalized citizens at the time of their conviction are immune from removal under § 1227

    That is because Singh was never free from official restraint at "[t]he pre-inspection area at the ... port of entry," United States v. Vazquez-Hernandez , 849 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2017), nor while he was detained. See Matter of Lin , 18 I. & N. Dec. 219, 222 (BIA 1982) (alien awaiting exclusion proceeding in detention had not "entered" the United States under the INA, even after escape); Argueta-Rosales , 819 F.3d at 1155. At this point, Singh had not entered the country.

  2. Hing Sum v. Holder

    602 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that for purposes of a § 212(h) waiver, the term "admission" refers to procedurally regular admission and not substantively lawful admission

    Matter of Pierre, 14 I N Dec. 467, 468 (1973) (citations omitted).Accord Matter of Jimenez-Lopez, 20 I N Dec. 738, 740-41 (BIA 1993); Matter of Patel, 20 I N Dec. 368, 370 (BIA 1991); Matter of Ching, 19 I N Dec. 203, 205 (BIA 1984); Matter of Lin, 18 I N Dec. 219, 220 (BIA 1982). Thus, under the BIA's case law as it stood in 1996, "admission" referred to a "lawful" entry — that is, only those entries involving "inspection and admission by an immigration officer," as opposed to those "unlawful" entries involving "actual and intentional evasion of inspection at the nearest inspection point."

  3. Correa v. Thornburgh

    901 F.2d 1166 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that freedom from official restraint required to have entered United States for purposes of § 1326

    An entry involves: (1) a crossing into the territorial limits of the United States, i.e. physical presence; (2)(a) an inspection and admission by an immigration officer or (b) actual and intentional evasion of inspection at the nearest inspection point; and (3) freedom from official restraint.Matter of Ching and Chen, Interim Decision 2984, at 3 (BIA 1984); see also Matter of Lin, 18 I N Dec. 219, 220 (BIA 1982); Matter of Yam, 16 I N Dec. 535, 536-37 (BIA 1978); Matter of Pierre, 14 I N Dec. 467, 468-69 (BIA 1973). Applying this test to the events of August 21, 1982, it is evident that Correa never effected an entry.

  4. ALI v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP

    Case No. 10-80338-CIV-COHN-SELTZER (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    In opposing the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff cites a number of cases relying on the out-dated entry doctrine, see, e.g., Joseph v. INS, No. 92-1641, 1993 WL 169035 (4th Cir. May 20, 1993);Matter of Patel, 20 I N Dec. 368 (BIA 1991); Matter of Ching Chen, 19 I N Dec. 203 (1984); Matter of Lin, 18 I N Dec. 219 (BIA 1982); Matter of A-, 9 I N Dec. 356 (BIA 1961), but each of these cases was decided before the 1996 IIRIRA amendments. Plaintiff cites one unpublished Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") case that was decided after the 1996 IIRIRA amendments,In re: Gheorghe Olar, 2003 WL 23521847 (BIA 2003), but the facts at issue in that case all preceded the amendments.