§
In re Nolasco-Tofino

13 Cited authorities

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

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,020 times   502 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Almendarez-Torres v. United States

    523 U.S. 224 (1998)   Cited 6,537 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

  3. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.

    511 U.S. 244 (1994)   Cited 3,799 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

  4. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

    480 U.S. 421 (1987)   Cited 2,391 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

  5. Russello v. United States

    464 U.S. 16 (1983)   Cited 2,096 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

  6. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.

    486 U.S. 281 (1988)   Cited 791 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute

  7. Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board

    350 U.S. 270 (1956)   Cited 403 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

  8. United States v. Hemme

    476 U.S. 558 (1986)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a four-month retroactive federal tax law against a due process challenge

  9. U.S. v. Pantin

    155 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 16 times
    In United States v. Pantin, 155 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit noted that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA") amended the immigration statutes so as to eliminate the previous legal distinction between deportation, removal and exclusion, merging all of these proceedings into a broader category entitled "removal proceedings."

  10. Romero-Morales v. I.N.S.

    25 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that where the IJ failed fully "to examine the particulars of the case before him prior to . . . denying the motion to reopen . . . a remand is advisable"

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

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,076 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