Matter of M-A-M

22 Cited authorities

  1. Indiana v. Edwards

    554 U.S. 164 (2008)   Cited 1,142 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself
  2. Reno v. Flores

    507 U.S. 292 (1993)   Cited 1,740 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the immigration context, minors aged sixteen or seventeen are not "too young or too ignorant to exercise" their right to make a revocable waiver of a removal or deportation hearing
  3. Drope v. Missouri

    420 U.S. 162 (1975)   Cited 2,918 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency
  4. Landon v. Plasencia

    459 U.S. 21 (1982)   Cited 611 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such aliens are entitled to protections of Due Process Clause in exclusion proceedings
  5. Shaughnessy v. Mezei

    345 U.S. 206 (1953)   Cited 630 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an excluded alien's indefinite detention on Ellis Island did not violate constitutional law because “he is treated as if he stopped at the border”
  6. Ladha v. I.N.S.

    215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 304 times
    Holding that an IJ may not require corroborative evidence from an otherwise credible applicant
  7. Nelson v. I.N.S.

    232 F.3d 258 (1st Cir. 2000)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that persecution "must rise above unpleasantness, harassment, and even basic suffering"
  8. Muñoz-Monsalve v. Mukasey

    551 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that noncitizen's due process rights were not violated by IJ's decision not to order a competency evaluation where the noncitizen did not request a competency evaluation, the noncitizen did not "bring the possibility of incompetence to the attention of the [IJ]," and "[t]he record contain[ed] no significantly probative evidence of any lack of competency"
  9. Mohamed v. Gonzales

    477 F.3d 522 (8th Cir. 2007)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that a petition for review is "an adequate substitute" for habeas corpus
  10. Brue v. Gonzales

    464 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding court has jurisdiction to review "whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard in making its determination"
  11. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,378 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
  12. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,732 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
  13. Section 1227 - Deportable aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1227   Cited 7,900 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Granting this discretion to the Attorney General
  14. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,296 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”
  15. Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,088 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”
  16. Section 1240.11 - Ancillary matters, applications

    8 C.F.R. § 1240.11   Cited 178 times
    Requiring the immigration judge to inform an alien of his "apparent eligibility" for relief from removal
  17. Section 1003.10 - Immigration judges

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.10   Cited 82 times
    Authorizing Director to "designate . . . temporary immigration judges for renewable terms not to exceed six months"
  18. Section 1240.4 - Incompetent respondents

    8 C.F.R. § 1240.4   Cited 16 times

    When it is impracticable for the respondent to be present at the hearing because of mental incompetency, the attorney, legal representative, legal guardian, near relative, or friend who was served with a copy of the notice to appear shall be permitted to appear on behalf of the respondent. If such a person cannot reasonably be found or fails or refuses to appear, the custodian of the respondent shall be requested to appear on behalf of the respondent. 8 C.F.R. §1240.4