U.S. Department of Justice. Executive Office for Immigration Review. Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
|
|
- Jennifer Francis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia Leyba, Gabriel G., Esq. Ggleyva PllC 400 W. Camelback Road, Ste. 116 Phoenix, AZ OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - EAZ P.0. Box Phoenix, AZ Name: GUZMAN-SANCHEZ, MARIA ISA. A Date of this notice: 10/23/2013 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Cole, Patricia A. Pauley, Roger Sincerely, DOrt.ltL c tvvv Donna Carr Chief Clerk Lulseges Userteam: Docket For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit
2 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia GUZMAN-SANCHEZ, MARIA ISABEL A ICE, 1705 E. HANNA RD. ELOY, AZ Name: GUZMAN-SA.NCHEZ, MARIA ISA... A OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - EAZ P.0. Box Phoenix, AZ Date of this notice: 10/23/2013 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R (a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision. Enclosure Panel Members: Adkins-Blanch, Charles K. Cole, Patricia A. Pauley, Roger Sincerely, DOJ1.n4.._ c t1aaj Donna Carr Chief Clerk Lulseges Userteam: Docket
3 ., U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Falls Church, Virginia File: A Eloy, AZ In re: MARIA ISABEL GUZMAN-SANCHEZ Date: lo.cl J 3 ZDJ3 IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Gabriel G. Leyba, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Brett A. Day Assistant Chief Counsel CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 237(a}(l){E)(i}, I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(E)(i)] - Alien smuggler APPLICATION: Termination The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely appeals an Immigration Judge's decision dated April 2, The Immigration Judge found the respondent to be removable as charged under the sole charge of deportability, and, in the absence of any applications for relief from removal, ordered the respondent removed from the United States to Mexico. On appeal, the respondent contests the Immigration Judge's finding of removability. The appeal will be sustained, and removal proceedings will be terminated. The Immigration Judge found that, based on the testimony of a Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") Special Agent and two Border Patrol Agents, as well as documentary evidence of record including an 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Agent, the DHS had established by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was deportable under section 237(a}{l)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(E)(i), as one who had, within 5 years of the date of her last entry, knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law (l.j. at 7-15). Specifically, the Immigration Judge found that the evidence showed that the respondent provided "secondary" stateside transportation for the Rigoberto Sanchez-Trejo Alien Smuggling Organization ("ASO"), which operated in the area of the United States-Mexico border town of 1 The Immigration Judge's April 2, 2013, decision, which dealt only with the issue of whether the respondent is eligible for relief from removal, incorporated by reference her earlier March 25, 2013, decision addressing the respondent's removability. As the only issue on appeal is whether the Immigration Judge correctly found the respondent to be removable as charged, all references to the Immigration Judge's decision are to the March 25, 2013, decision.
4 A Sells, Arizona (l.j. at 12). The process for smuggling, as described by the border agents and as found by the Immigration Judge, involved ASO foot-guides bringing aliens from Mexico over the border by foot through inhospitable desert terrain over a period of several days to the town of Sells, Arizona. At that point, the aliens would either get into a vehicle driven by other ASO drivers, or, in some cases, the foot-guide would himself drive the aliens in a vehicle which had been left for him at a pre-arranged location by the ASO. The aliens would then be taken to either Phoenix or Tucson, where they would generally pay the ASO for their services in smuggling them into the United States (l.j. at 2-7, 9-14 ). It is alleged that the respondent was involved in this second step of the process, coordinating and arranging transportation vehicles from Sells, Arizona to points further inland (either Phoenix or Tucson), and was observed driving scout vehicles to assist the transport vehicles to avoid detection and interception by border patrol agents. Under section 237(a)(l)(E)(i) of the Act, "[a]ny alien who (prior to the date of entry, at the time of any entry, or within five years of any entry) knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law is deportable." Thus, by its own terms, an alien may be found to be removable under section 237(a)( l ){E)(i) of the Act for either: (1) "assisting an alien" to unlawfully enter the United States; or (2) "encouraging, inducing, aiding or abetting" an alien's unlawful entry. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent was removable for alien smuggling under both of these alternative prongs. Under the first prong, a respondent is removable for "assisting aliens" to unlawfully enter the United States if she was involved in "bringing" the aliens to the United States. United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007) (en bane). The focus of the analysis is on the respondent's participation in the "initial transportation" to the aliens to the United States. Id. In addition, a "bringing to" or "smuggling" offense "does not terminate until the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the United States ceases to transport them-in other words, the offense continues until the initial transporter drops off the aliens on U.S. side of the border." Id at Under Ninth Circuit law, alien smuggling does not end once the alien crosses the border. Id at However, the Ninth Circuit has rejected the argument that a "brings to" offense continues until the illegal aliens reach their "ultimate destination" in the United States. Id. at The respondent argues that she cannot be found to have assisted an alien to unlawfully enter the United States because she was not involved in the "initial transportation" of the aliens, but rather only the "secondary transportation" of the aliens once they had already crossed the border. The Immigration Judge found that the evidence connected the respondent to activities that occurred before the foot-guides, who transported the aliens across the border, terminated their act of transportation and dropped off the aliens (I.J. at 9). In this regard, she found that the evidence showed that the Sanchez-Trejo ASO coordinated with smugglers in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, and that the smugglers in Sonora would contact the ringleader of the ASO to arrange for vehicular transportation of the aliens from an inhospitable desert area in Sells, Arizona, further inland. The Immigration Judge found that based on the testimony of the agents as to the expectations of the aliens and the scheme set up, "the initial transportation of the aliens continued at least beyond Sells, Arizona: a desolate and rugged area with increased border-patrol presence where the smuggled aliens had no expectation of being 'dropped off" (l.j. at 10). 2
5 A However, the Immigration Judge's finding were based on the testimony of three DHS agents: the testimony of Agent Gavin Weidman, a special agent with DHS Investigations in the Tucson, Arizona office, who conducted an investigation into the respondent's activities in the investigation and did not involve issues of the ASO's involvement in any "initial transportation" of aliens from Mexico into the United States (Tr. at 31-32). Similarly, Agent Roberto Teran, a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent assigned to the Tucson Sector Border Patrol tactical team, linked the respondent only to secondary transportation within the United States (Tr. at ). Specifically, he indicated that his investigation of the Sanchez-Trejo ASO did not involve any of the crossings of aliens into the United States "south of Sells" (Tr. at 208). Finally, Agent Eduardo Berlanga, a Border Patrol Agent working out of the Tucson, Arizona office, indicated that he had never personally witnessed the respondent arranging for, or transporting, aliens across the border from Mexico into the United States (Tr. at ). Rather, he testified that, to his knowledge, all of the transportation of aliens by the smuggling ring was wholly within the United States, from locations in Sells, Arizona to Tucson and Phoenix (Tr. at ). Indeed, none of the three agents who testified indicated that they had any personal knowledge of the respondent's involvement in transporting aliens into the United States. As such, we find that the DHS has not established by evidence that is clear and convincing, that the respondent participated in the "initial transportation" of aliens into the United States. Under the second prong, a respondent is removable for knowingly encouraging, inducing, abetting, or aiding an illegal entry, even if he or she was not actually involved in the initial transportation. See Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Rather, if the respondent "knowingly participated in a prearranged plan to bring [illegal aliens] to the border, and... to meet them on the other side of the border, [she] falls under the purview of the statute." Id. at 679 (quoting with approval the Board's decision being reviewed in Hernandez-Guadarrama); see also Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005); Matter of Vargas-Banuelos, 13 I&N Dec. 810, 812 (BIA 1971) (finding an alien removable where the alien pre-arranged in Mexico to assist aliens to enter the United States, instructed them where to cross the border, told them where to go in the United States, and arranged for a driver to pick them up once they entered). Where the respondent picks up aliens near the border, the focus is on whether there was pre-arrangement. In this regard, the Ninth Circuit has left open the possibility that an aiding and abetting charge could be sustained where "a smuggling operation 'relies on' a secondary, state-side transporter-in the sense that the secondary transporter's agreement to participate induces or encourages the commission of the initial, extraterritorial 'brings to' offense." United States v. Singh, 532 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Lopez, supra, at 1201 n.19). However, there must be sufficient evidence demonstrating that the respondent's transportation of aliens in the United States was part of a pre-arranged plan to bring illegal aliens into the United States. See generally Altamirano v. Gonzales, supra. On appeal, the respondent argues that the Immigration Judge incorrectly found that the respondent was part of a pre-arranged plan to bring aliens into the United States. In this regard, much of the respondent's argument on appeal focuses on the fact that some of the evidence relied upon to show this pre-arrangement, including the information contained in the I-213, was impermissible hearsay. In addition, she argues that the testimony of the three government witnesses, including their statements as to the respondent's involvement in the Rigoberto Sanchez-Trejo AGO, were the product of hearsay, as they were based in part on their interviews 3
6 A with confidential informants who were not made available to testify. Initially, we note that hearsay is admissible in immigration proceedings. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1995). Indeed, the "[t]he sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair." Id. at 310. After hearing arguments and evaluating the testimony, the Immigration Judge found the Form was admissible (l.j. at 2, n.3). We find no basis to disturb this determination. However, while we agree that the was admissible, we agree with the respondent that much of the information contained therein was of questionable reliability. In this regard, the Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, mentions two instances in which the Sanchez-Trejo AGO was involved in cross-border activity (Exh. 3 at 4, 12; Tr. at 56-57). However, on questioning Agent Weidman stated that these accounts had come from unnamed and unidentified informants (Tr. at 60-65, 89-90). Notably, the respondent's counsel repeatedly challenged the reliability of these unnamed sources. In addition, on questioning Agent Berlanga acknowledged that the statements of such informants was "sometimes" unreliable, as the informants-who had been involved in illegal activities themselves-had incentive to give wrong information, either due to threats by the foot guides, or to avoid being prosecuted themselves (Tr. at ). Although the respondent was involved in transporting aliens from Sells, Arizona, to points further inland, such activity, by itself, does not establish prearrangement, or aiding and abetting alien smuggling. The Ninth Circuit has held that the mere act of picking up aliens at a location near the border and transporting them within the United States is not sufficient to support a charge for aiding and abetting alien smuggling because it does not necessarily show pre-arrangement since "drivers themselves are fungible and need not be in place before an alien is smuggled across the border [and] the particular driver on any leg of a trip may change." United States v. Noriega-Perez, 670 F.3d 1033, (9th Cir. 2012). The Immigration Judge found that the smuggling operation relied on the respondent and the ASO to provide "secondary, state-side transportation" and therefore found this case more analogous to United States v. Singh, supra, where the alien agreed to transport the aliens once they were in the United States and agreed to collect certain fraudulent passports from the aliens and send them back to the smuggling organization, which was important to "ensuring the continued operation" of the smuggling organization, such that it constituted "aiding and abetting" the smuggling of the aliens (l.j. at 12). The Immigration Judge noted the account of one of the patrol agents, Agent Berlanga, who testified that during one instance where the respondent was associated with guiding a smuggling vehicle from Sells, Arizona further inland, one of the aliens in the vehicle was later interviewed, and stated that he had been smuggled into the United States in order to become a driver of the ASO {Tr. at ). Thus, the Immigration Judge concluded that "[t]his is not only evidence of pre-arrangement but, similar to Singh, it is evidence that the respondent was involved in coordinating the transportation of an individual who was important to "ensuring the continued operation" of the smuggling organization (I.J. at 12). However, we find that the single instance cited by the Immigration Judge is insufficient to establish that the respondent aided and abetted the smuggling of aliens. There is insufficient evidence of pre-arrangement by the respondent to bring aliens into the United States. Notably, there is no testimony nor finding that the respondent was aware of the identity of the passengers 4
7 A she transported, much less that she was aware that one of these passengers had come to the United States to be an ASO driver himself. In sum, we find a lack of reliable evidence that the respondent arranged or pre-arranged illegal border crossings by aliens, and thus was involved in the "initial transportation" of aliens, or knowingly encouraged, induced, abetted, or aided an illegal entry, even if she was not actually involved in the initial transportation. Therefore, we agree with the respondent that the DHS has not met its burden of showing that the respondent is deportable as an alien smuggler. Accordingly, we will terminate removal proceedings in this matter. Accordingly, the following order will be entered. ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and removal proceedings are terminated. Board Member Roger A. Pauley respectfully dissents without opinion. 5
8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT ELOY, ARIZONA File: AOB? In the Matter of MARIA ISABEL Gl)ZMAN-SANCHEZ RESPONDENT CHARGES: APPLICATIONS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: GABRIEL LEYBA, ESQUIRE ) ) ) ) April 2, 2013 IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS 400 West Camelback Road, Suite 116 Phoenix, Arizona ON BEHALF OF OHS: BRETT DAY, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL I. Procedural History Department of Homeland Security 1705 East Hanna Road Eloy, Arizona ORDER AND DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION COURT The respondent is a citizen of Mexico who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States on March 2, (Exhibit 1, Form ) On November 19, 2012, the respondent was arrested for her alleged participation in an alien smuggling organization operating near Sells, Arizona. (Exhibit 3, Form ) The Department on November 19, 2012, issued a Notice to Appear (Form 1-862). The filing of the Notice to 1
9 . ) : ' Appear on December 3, 2012, initiated removal proceedings against the respondent. The Department charged the respondent with being subject to removal pursuant to Section 237(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, in that prior to the date of her entry, at the time of any entry, or within five years of the date of any entry, she knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law. (Form 1-862, 1.) Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security filed a Form 1-261, additional charges of inadmissibility/deportability. (Exhibit 1-A.) The Department further alleged that from September 28, 2010, through October 2, 2012, the respondent, as a member of the Rigoberto Sanchez Trejo alien smuggling organization, did encourage, induce, assist, abet, or aid an unknown number of aliens to enter or to try to enter the United States. (Exhibit 1-A, 1.) In addition, the Department alleged that on, but not limited to, September 8, 2011, she attempted to prevent the apprehension of approximately 12 to 14 illegal aliens, by interfering with border patrol's pursuit of those aliens. (Id.) On, but not limited to, February 1, 2012, during the apprehension of 16 illegal aliens, the respondent was identified by an alien smuggling guide as an active member of the Rigoberto Sanchez Trejo alien smuggling organization, and the Department further alleged that the respondent did knowingly encourage, induce, assist, abet, or aid aliens to enter or try to enter the United States. (kl) On March 25, 2013, this Court issued an order sustaining the charge of removal. As a result of the Court's having sustained removal pursuant to INA Section 237(a)(1 )(E)(i) of the Act, the respondent is subject to removal and there appears to be no alternative forms of relief available to her. The Court incorporates by reference its findings of the March 25, 2013, order. A April 2, 2013
10 !f. II. Legal Analysis and Findings of Law Based on a thorough review of all evidence of record, the Court finds that the respondent's removability has been established and that she has not established any alternative forms of relief that may be available to her and is therefore removable as charged pursuant to INA Section 237(a)(1 )(E)(i). Initially, the respondent expressed interest in voluntary departure under INA Section 240B(b); however, the parties agree that respondent appears not to be statutorily eligible for this form of relief. The respondent expressed no fear of returning to her home country of Mexico and therefore no alternative relief is available. Removability has been established by clear and convincing evidence and therefore the Court will issue an order Conclusion In that the respondent has not applied for or sought any forms of relief for which she may be eligible, this Court will enter the following order: ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United States to Mexico. IRENE C. FELDMAN U.S. Immigration Judge APPEAL RIGHTS: Both parties have the right to appeal the decision of the Immigration Judge in this case. Any appeal is due in the hands of the Board of Immigration Appeals on or before 30 calendar days from the date of service of this decision. Today is April 2, Thirty days from today is May 2, The Court will reserve the respondent's right to appeal. A April 2, 2013
11 CERTIFICATE PAGE I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JUDGE IRENE C. FELDMAN, in the matter of: MARIA ISABEL GUZMAN-SANCHEZ A ELOY, ARIZONA was held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. -- SANDRA L. DUNCAN (Transcriber) FREE STATE REPORTING, lnc.-2 APRIL 28, 2013 (Completion Date)
5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia Date of this notice: 12/31/2013
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530 Monique Carreras-Amadeo,
More informationU.S. Department Justice. Executive Office for Immigration Review. Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
~ U.S. Department Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 Brown, Christina, Esq. The
More informationImmigrant & Refugee Appellate Center
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Q[fice of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church. Virginia 20530 DOMINGUEZ-PARRA, JAVIER 0
More informationD~ Ctvvu. U.S. Department of Justice. Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 leesburg Pike. Suite 2000 Falls Church. V1rgm1a 2204 / Lopez, Andres The Lopez Law
More informationMemorandum Subject To Date (BIA November 24, 2009) December 3, 2009 From Brian O'Leary, Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller, Assistant Chief Immig
Os O ret O N Complaint Number: r l Immigration Judge: (b)(6) Complaint Received Date:.4" CE PQ cs) Co" a cri Complaint Narrative: 00 ON Os as as c, 1 c, c, c) c c) 00 en N Co O es, isi (-4 e.si... c, en
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A
Nau Velazquez-Macedo v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 1117145135 Case: 13-10896 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10896
More informationWhat Happens After I Get Out? A Guide for Immigrants Seeking Release From Prolonged Detention at a Bond Hearing Under Rodriguez v. Robbins March 2016
LEGAL DEPARTMENT IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT What Happens After I Get Out? A Guide for Immigrants Seeking Release From Prolonged Detention at a Bond Hearing Under Rodriguez v. Robbins March 2016 This guide
More informationMatter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent
Matter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent Decided October 28, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Where an alien has the right
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A
Case: 13-12074 Date Filed: 03/13/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PARULBHAI KANTILAL PATEL, DARSHANABAHEN PATEL, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
More informationLosseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-16-2014 Losseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Agency No. A versus
Case: 15-11954 Date Filed: 07/05/2016 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-11954 Agency No. A079-061-829 KAP SUN BUTKA, Petitioner, versus U.S.
More informationJuan Carlos Flores-Zavala v. Atty Gen USA
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-21-2011 Juan Carlos Flores-Zavala v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2464
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) Petitioner/Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN ASHCROFT, as Attorney General of the ) United States; TOM RIDGE, as Secretary of the
More informationAntonia Rosario-Rosario v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2015 Antonia Rosario-Rosario v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationFlor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box Oakland, CA (510)
Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box 70976 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 380-8229 DETAINED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMGRATION APPEALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No BIA No. A versus
[PUBLISH] YURG BIGLER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-10971 BIA No. A18-170-979 versus FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT March 27,
More informationPRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano
PRACTICE ADVISORY April 21, 2011 Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano This advisory concerns the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081
More informationMatter of Khanh Hoang VO, Respondent
Matter of Khanh Hoang VO, Respondent Decided March 4, 2011 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Where the substantive offense underlying an alien
More informationShahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2002 Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-2558 Follow
More informationIn re Renato Wilhemy SANUDO, Respondent
In re Renato Wilhemy SANUDO, Respondent File A92 886 946 - San Diego Decided August 1, 2006 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) An alien
More informationAlpha Jalloh v. Atty Gen USA
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-13-2011 Alpha Jalloh v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3623 Follow this
More informationn a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild
n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild PRACTICE ADVISORY: SAMPLE CARACHURI-ROSENDO MOTIONS June 21, 2010 By Simon Craven, Trina Realmuto and Dan Kesselbrenner 1 Prior to
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSÉ GARCIA-CORTEZ; ALICIA CHAVARIN-CARRILLO, No. 02-70866 Petitioners, Agency Nos. v. A75-481-361 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
ROSA AMELIA AREVALO-LARA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 4, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON
More informationSekou Koita v. Atty Gen USA
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-29-2010 Sekou Koita v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3001 Follow this
More informationHidayat v. Atty Gen USA
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-18-2005 Hidayat v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1349 Follow this and
More informationRESPONDENT S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF BOND APPEAL
Himedes V. Chicas EOIR ID No. CY###### Law Offices of Jezic & Moyse, LLC 2730 University Boulevard West, Suite 604 Silver Spring, MD 20902 (240) 292-7200 Fax: (240) 292-7725 hchicas@jezicfirm.com Counsel
More informationOVERVIEW of Topics. Understanding a Notice to Appear. Pleadings to the Notice to Appear (or Other Charging Documents) and Contesting Removal
Pleadings to the Notice to Appear (or Other Charging Documents) and Contesting Removal Helen Parsonage (DL), Winston Salem, NC Dan Kesselbrenner, Boston, MA Francisco Ugarte, Immigration Specialist, San
More informationOneil Bansie v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-15-2014 Oneil Bansie v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-60728 Document: 00514900361 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT MARIA ELIDA GONZALEZ-DIAZ, v. Petitioner WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 07-2397 For the Seventh Circuit JOSE M. VACA-TELLEZ, also known as JOSE VACA, also known as JOSE BACA, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the
More informationChhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2014 Chhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:10-cv-00039 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALBERTO VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, ) PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-1033 WESCLEY FONSECA PEREIRA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Raquel Castillo-Torres petitions for review of an order by the Board of
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 13, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT RAQUEL CASTILLO-TORRES, Petitioner, v. ERIC
More informationJuan Gonzalez-Perez v. Atty Gen USA
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-10-2011 Juan Gonzalez-Perez v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1523 Follow
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Rama M. Taib* Adam N. Crandell* Stephen Brown* Fariha Quasem* Maureen A. Sweeney, Supervising Attorney University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, AKA Arturo Ramirez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-71788 Agency No. A095-733-635
More informationApokarina v. Atty Gen USA
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-7-2004 Apokarina v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4265 Follow this
More informationKwame Dwumaah v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-13-2015 Kwame Dwumaah v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. BIA Nos. A & A
Liliana Marin v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 920070227 Dockets.Justia.com [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-13576 Non-Argument Calendar BIA Nos. A95-887-161
More informationAMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION DHS ANNOUNCES UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL TO THE INTERIOR
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 August 13, 2004 DHS ANNOUNCES UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL TO THE INTERIOR By Mary Kenney The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
More informationAugust Term (Submitted: November 9, 2017 Decided: February 23, 2018) Docket No ag. WEI SUN, Petitioner, - against -
15-2342-ag Wei Sun v. Jefferson B. Sessions III UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2017 (Submitted: November 9, 2017 Decided: February 23, 2018) Docket No. 15-2342-ag WEI
More informationLiliana v. Atty Gen USA
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-21-2005 Liliana v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1245 Follow this
More informationOVERVIEW OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER INA 240
5 OVERVIEW OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER INA 240 How do aliens get placed in removal proceedings? Controlling unauthorized migration Where and how Enforcement authority of immigration officers INA 287 6
More informationREMOVAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER INA 240
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER INA 240 Yamataya v. Fisher (1903) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS DHS Discretion Notice To Appear Issuing Serving Filing COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS Jurisdiction Of Immigration Court
More information5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia A Date of this notice: 4/9/2014
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530 JoseW. Vega Jose W. Vega
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. DAOHUA YU, A Petitioner,
RESTRICTED Case: 11-70987, 08/13/2012, ID: 8285939, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 1 of 21 No. 11-70987 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAOHUA YU, A099-717-691 Petitioner, v. ERIC H.
More informationAPPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005
The American Immigration Law Foundation 515 28th Street Des Moines, IA 50312 www.asistaonline.org PRACTICE ADVISORY APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED:
More informationMelvin Paiz-Cabrera v. Atty Gen USA
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-20-2012 Melvin Paiz-Cabrera v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-2723 Follow
More informationDiego Sacoto-Rivera v. Attorney General United States
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-22-2012 Diego Sacoto-Rivera v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationState and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law. The Arizona Experiment
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. 2010 Annual Conference Orlando, FL Oct. 25th State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law The Arizona Experiment Beverly Ginn, Edwards & Ginn
More informationFederico Flores v. Atty Gen USA
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2011 Federico Flores v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1472 Follow
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-24-2008 Fry v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3547 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-60638 Document: 00513298855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PAUL ANTHONY ROACH, v. Petitioner, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
More informationJose Diaz Hernandez v. Attorney General United States
2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-1-2017 Jose Diaz Hernandez v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA
Kara Hartzler, Esq. Attorney for Respondent Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project 2601 N. Pinal Parkway P.O. Box 654 Florence, AZ 85232 Telephone: (520) 868-0191 ext. 103 Facsimile: (520) 868-0192
More informationMatter of Siegfred Ara SIERRA, Respondent
Matter of Siegfred Ara SIERRA, Respondent Decided April 8, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Under the law of the United States Court
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0296p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ALEKSANDER STOLAJ; DIELLA STOLAJ, Petitioners, v. ERIC
More informationIt is expected that excludable delay under Title 18, United States Code,
Case :-cr-0-rcc-dtf Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 Sean C. Chapman Law Office of Sean C. Chapman, P.C. 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson, Arizona 0 Telephone: (0-0 Fax: (0 - Arizona State Bar No.
More informationImmigration-Related Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences
Order Code RL32657 Immigration-Related Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences Updated December 18, 2006 Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division
More informationTinah v. Atty Gen USA
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-2008 Tinah v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4518 Follow this and
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-6-2005 Danu v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1657 Follow this and additional
More informationMarke v. Atty Gen USA
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-13-2005 Marke v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3031 Follow this and
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-11-2009 Ding v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2893 Follow this and
More informationJhon Frey Cubides Gomez v. Atty Gen USA
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-16-2010 Jhon Frey Cubides Gomez v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-4662
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3883 ZVONKO STEPANOVIC, v. Petitioner, MARK R. FILIP, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review
More informationBrian Wilson v. Attorney General United State
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2016 Brian Wilson v. Attorney General United State Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationMatter of Martin CHAIREZ-Castrejon, Respondent
Matter of Martin CHAIREZ-Castrejon, Respondent Decided February 11, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) With respect to aggravated felony
More informationImmigrant & Refugee Appellate Center
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 Lisa Seifert Seifert Law
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-2044 Carlos Caballero-Martinez lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent
More informationAuthentication of foreign documents, issues regarding Country Reports, and the limited value of impeachment evidence.
Authentication of foreign documents, issues regarding Country Reports, and the limited value of impeachment evidence. By Jonathan D. Montag Authentication of foreign documents In a removal proceeding it
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
-PJK Cuello v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director of Doc. 10 Roberto Mendoza Cuello, Jr. Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN
More informationUpdate: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply?
Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply? Katherine Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2014 1 Section 212(h) of the INA is an important waiver of inadmissibility based on certain crimes.
More informationDISTRICT OF ARIZONA. objection to the PSR based on Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL (2004).
PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona GARY M. RESTAINO Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Arizona State Bar
More informationThe NTA: Notice to Appear Kerry Bretz Bretz & Coven
These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12, 2017. The NTA: Notice to Appear Kerry Bretz Bretz & Coven These materials were originally
More informationMatter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents
Matter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents Decided August 21, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Where an applicant has filed an asylum application
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MALKIT SINGH, Petitioner, No. 02-71594 v. INS No. A72-020-928 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. OPINION On Petition
More informationVetetim Skenderi v. Atty Gen USA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-17-2009 Vetetim Skenderi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4587 Follow
More informationCase: 1:11-cv Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172
Case: 1:11-cv-05452 Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSE JIMENEZ MORENO and MARIA )
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YELENA IZOTOVA CHOIN, Petitioner, No. 06-75823 v. Agency No. A75-597-079 MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. YELENA IZOTOVA
More informationOwen Johnson v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-14-2015 Owen Johnson v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationThese materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12, 2017.
Linda Kenepaske Law Offices of Linda Kenepaske, PLLC 17 Battery Place, Suite 1226 These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12,
More informationLloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-6-2015 Lloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. GUILLERMO RAMIREZ PEYRO, Petitioner, v.
No. 06-1569 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO RAMIREZ PEYRO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO GONZALEZ, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for review of the
More information======================================================================= = Proposed Rules Federal Register
[Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 14494-14497] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28mr07-25] =======================================================================
More informationOswaldo Galindo-Torres v. Atty Gen USA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-9-2009 Oswaldo Galindo-Torres v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-3581
More information[560 F.3d 1030] [560 F.3d 1029] Frank P. Sprouls, Ricci & Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner.
560 F.3d 1028 Mario SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, * Respondent. No. 04-75584. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 15, 2008. Filed
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0777n.06. Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0777n.06 Case No. 15-3066 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT VIKRAMJEET SINGH, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General,
More informationOPINION BELOW. The opinion of the Tenth Circuit of Appeals is reported as Rashid v. Gonzales, 2006 WL (10 th Cir. 2006).
1 OPINION BELOW The opinion of the Tenth Circuit of Appeals is reported as Rashid v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 2171522 (10 th Cir. 2006). STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION A panel of the Tenth Circuit entered its decision
More informationSamu Samu v. Atty Gen USA
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-17-2007 Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2687 Follow this
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-2550 LOLITA WOOD a/k/a LOLITA BENDIKIENE, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Petition for Review
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 07-2183 For the Seventh Circuit MARGARITA DEL ROCIO BORREGO, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petition for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.
Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-71773, 02/26/2016, ID: 9879515, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 1 of 10 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHOUCHEN YANG, v. Petitioner, No. 12-71773 Agency No. A099-045-733
More informationOkado v. Atty Gen USA
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2005 Okado v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3698 Follow this and
More informationA "Fundamentally Unfair" Removal Proceeding: Denial of Due Process and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Contreras v.
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice Volume 33 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement Article 7 March 2013 A "Fundamentally Unfair" Removal Proceeding: Denial of Due Process and Ineffective Assistance
More informationJose Lopez Mendez v. Attorney General United States
2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-28-2017 Jose Lopez Mendez v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017
More informationChecklist of Non-Substantive Offenses
Checklist of Non-Substantive Offenses By Norton Tooby & Joseph Justin Rollin Table of Contents Checklist of Non-Substantive Offenses...1 Introduction 1 1 Non-Substantive Offense Chart...5 2 Inadmissibility
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIMANE TALL, Petitioner, No. 06-72804 v. Agency No. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney A93-008-485 General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition
More information