Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
264 results
0.64s
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Agency decision · Agency decision
Cleaning Servs. of Long Island Ltd., 13 OCAHO no. 1314, 3 (2018) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Frio Cnty. Partners, Inc., 12 OCAHO no. 1276, 16 (2016). … Here, there is no qualifying evidence of bad faith; however, the absence of bad faith does not result in de facto conclusion that a respondent has acted in good faith.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
In 1953, at the age of 19, respondent enlisted in the United States Air Force; he served, pursuant to this and two -subsequent enlistments, for a period of ten years, until his discharge under honorable … Had the respondent made an independent admission of commission of a crime, or of the acts constituting the essential elements of a crime, there would be scope for ascertaining what specific acts were admitted
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
While it is true that section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, does not require an applicant for relief to establish good moral character for any specified period of time, nevertheless … an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty daysor more, regardless of whether the offense, or Offenses, for which he had been confined were committed within or withdut such period.'
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
He was served on November 23, 1945, but did not file exceptions within the specified period. … As we have previously held : We are not permitted to go behind the record to determine just what trans. aired. Ifvlitts v. UM. 203 Fed. 152 (S.D.. N.Y.. 1918).
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewCite as 29 I&N Dec. 491 (AAO 2026)
Agency decision · Agency decision
See section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (2024). … See, e.g., Matter of Air India “Flight No. 101,” 21 I&N Dec. 890, 892 (BIA 1997) (remanding a fine proceeding when the officer did not state specific reasons for the determination).
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Agency decision · Agency decision
INTRODUCTION This case arises under the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. … Mesa Air Grp., 9 OCAHO no. 1106, 3 (2004). Here the delay is not likely to result in such prejudicial results.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
Section 243(h) of the Act; as amended by section 203(e) of the Refugee Act of 1980. … Aired, supra, at 482.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
that the Service evidence established that each respondent is an alien illegally in the United States since he remained without authority after he was admitted as an alien crewman from foreign for a period … The term "reasonable distance," as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the district
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Agency decision · Agency decision
(INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. … Mesa Air Group, 9 OCAHO no. 1106, 2 (2004).
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
The only additional comment required in this connection is that the portion of the court's opinion on which the Service seizes was concerned with the quite diverse question of whether the aliens were entitled … to make "transportation checks" within a "reasonable distance" (defined by 8 CFR 2872 as 100 air miles) from the external boundaries of the United States, and gives said officers access to private lands
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
attached an affidavit from the former owner of a LaFayette appliance company who avers that he knows the petitioner and his first wife because he used to service the appliances, plumbing, and heating and air … La. 1976), asserted that the relatively short period of time between the petitioner's acquisition of lawful permanent resident status and his divorce from his first wife indicated a fraudulent intent.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
It is true that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the period of lawful temporary residence may count toward the period of lawful unrelinquished domicile required under … As I stated in my recent dissent in Matter of Yeung, supra, were we writing on a clean slate in a case in which the respondent had first asserted eligibility for the waiver in question during an exclusion
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewCite as 25 I&N Dec. 535 (BIA 2011)
Agency decision · Agency decision
that term is defined under the Act, at the time of the original registration period, in this case, between March 9, 2001, and September 9, 2002. … The comment period brought several changes to the interim rule, including (1) an extension of the grace period (after termination of a valid status) within which an alien could file for late registration
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewCite as 25 I&N Dec. 193 (BIA 2010)
Agency decision · Agency decision
The “reasonable period” language was initially adopted based on public comment regarding prior proposed interim regulations that would have required an alien relying on “extraordinary circumstances” to … Further, a more general explanation, not focused on aliens possessing a valid status, is provided regarding a “reasonable period” following changed or extraordinary circumstances: Certain commenters appeared
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
Section 242B(c)(3)(B) of the Act. … Violations of procedural due process generally “call for the prophylactic remedy of vacating the order of deportation and for writing thereafter on a clean slate.” Castaneda-Delgado v.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Agency decision · Agency decision
For national origin, the relevant period is “each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks preceding the year the alleged discriminatory act occurred.” Zajradhara v. … The relevant period for a claim based on national origin, then, is calendar years 2022 and 2023.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
In response to proposed motions regulations, commenters argued that a 90-day period was insufficient time for aliens to present new evidence, avail themselves of changes in law, or seek additional forms … The Immigration Act of 1990 states that “the Attorney General shall issue regulations with respect to * * * the period of time in which motions to reopen and to reconsider may be offered in deportation
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewAgency decision · Agency decision
The only additional comment required on the point is that the respondent failed to take advantage of that privilege. … The only additional comment required in this ease is that we have noted counsel's contention that the Service is unduly delaying action on the-visa petition filed in the respondent's behalf.
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewCite as 25 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2011)
Agency decision · Agency decision
The DHS has appealed, arguing that the respondent is not statutorily eligible for cancellation because section 240A(d)(1) of the Act provides that any period of continuous residence ends “when the alien … Section 240A(d)(1) of the Act, which sets forth the provision commonly referred to as the “stop-time” rule, states in pertinent part: [A]ny period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence
Executive Office for Immigration ReviewCite as 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002)
Agency decision · Agency decision
See Iran Air v. Kugelman, 996 F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. … Sentences for variable periods of time generally are treated as sentences for the maximum period specified. See, e.g., United States v. Galicia-Delgado, 130 F.3d 518, 520-21 (2d Cir. 1997); People v.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.