§
In re Monreal-Aguinaga

14 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,024 times   504 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

    422 U.S. 405 (1975)   Cited 2,610 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

  3. Lorillard v. Pons

    434 U.S. 575 (1978)   Cited 1,122 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of legislative ratification attaches where there is “an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute,” and Congress “re-enacts statute without change”

  4. INS v. Phinpathya

    464 U.S. 183 (1984)   Cited 245 times
    Holding that thirty-two-year-old statute must still be given its plain meaning

  5. Singh v. I.N.S.

    213 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 244 times
    Holding that the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen because the BIA did not give petitioner notice that specific evidence was required, and the evidence petitioner provided supported a motion to reopen

  6. Labor Board v. Gullett Gin Co.

    340 U.S. 361 (1951)   Cited 211 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding unemployment compensation payments not deductible from back pay award under the National Labor Relations Act

  7. National Lead Co. v. United States

    252 U.S. 140 (1920)   Cited 135 times
    In National Lead, the executive's construction of the provision at issue had essentially existed since 1861 up until the petition in the case was filed, which occurred around 1920, 252 U.S. at 146, 40 S.Ct. 237, a much more well-established understanding of a statute when compared with the four years at issue in this case, one year of which was a pilot year for the program.

  8. Cortes-Castillo v. I.N.S.

    997 F.2d 1199 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times

    No. 92-3121. Argued April 21, 1993. Decided June 23, 1993. Douglas Schoppert (argued), Coursey Schoppert, Chicago, IL, for petitioner. Fred Foreman, U.S. Atty., Chicago, IL, William J. Howard, David J. Kline, Donald E. Keener (argued), Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Michael L. Harper, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, I.N.S., Chicago, IL, for respondent. Petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before CUMMINGS and FLAUM, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, Jr., Senior

  9. Hernandez-Cordero v. U.S.I.N.S.

    819 F.2d 558 (5th Cir. 1987)   Cited 18 times
    In Hernandez-Cordero, as in the case sub judice, the BIA had stated in a conclusory fashion that all of the factors had been considered cumulatively.

  10. Brown v. I.N.S.

    775 F.2d 383 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    No. 84-1528. Argued September 9, 1985. Decided October 25, 1985. Nigel L. Scott, Washington, D.C., with whom Raymond B. Thompson, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioner. Eileen A. Carty, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for the respondent. Lauri Steven Filppu and Mark C. Walters, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances, for respondent. Petition for

  11. Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,078 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”

  12. Section 1254 - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 1254   Cited 1,130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing suspension-of-deportation eligibility

  13. Section 1229c - Voluntary departure

    8 U.S.C. § 1229c   Cited 1,003 times
    Imposing statutory penalties for failure to depart