In re A-C-M

31 Cited authorities

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
561 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 866 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future
Dolan v. Postal Service
546 U.S. 481 (2006) Cited 639 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "negligent transmission" of postal matter "does not comprehend all negligence occurring in the course of mail delivery"
Udall v. Tallman
380 U.S. 1 (1965) Cited 2,157 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a regulation must be interpreted, “a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt”
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson
538 U.S. 468 (2003) Cited 520 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a now-private corporation could not assert sovereign immunity in a suit involving events that occurred when the entity was owned by a foreign sovereign
United States v. Bailey
444 U.S. 394 (1980) Cited 1,091 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that if a defendant fails to support one element of a defense, "the trial court and jury need not be burdened with testimony supporting other elements"
Dixon v. United States
548 U.S. 1 (2006) Cited 311 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a defense “excuse conduct that would otherwise be punishable,” but “does not controvert any of the elements of the offense itself,” the Government has no constitutional duty to overcome the defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Holder v. Hall
512 U.S. 874 (1994) Cited 218 times
Holding that the size of a governing body is not subject to a Section 2 vote dilution challenge
Khouzam v. Ashcroft
361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 291 times
Holding that acquiescence "requires only that government officials know of or remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their legal responsibility to prevent it"
Atlantic Cleaners Dyers v. U.S.
286 U.S. 427 (1932) Cited 482 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption of uniformity gives way “[w]here the subject-matter to which the words refer is not the same in the several places where they are used”
Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute & Holy Land Foundation
291 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 184 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to establish a private cause of action for material support of terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 2333, 2339A, "the plaintiffs must be able to show that [the murder of their son by Hamas] was a reasonably foreseeable result of [defendants'] making a donation" to Hamas
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 42,713 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 1158 - Asylum
8 U.S.C. § 1158 Cited 10,473 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,760 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1227 - Deportable aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1227 Cited 7,921 times 40 Legal Analyses
Granting this discretion to the Attorney General
Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 7,828 times 13 Legal Analyses
Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver
Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
8 U.S.C. § 1229b Cited 5,101 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”
Section 1240.8 - Burdens of proof in removal proceedings
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 Cited 307 times 4 Legal Analyses
Applying "clearly and beyond doubt" burden to "proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival" or "[a]liens present in the United States without being admitted"

In re A-C-M

31 Cited authorities

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future

Holding that "negligent transmission" of postal matter "does not comprehend all negligence occurring in the course of mail delivery"

Holding that when a regulation must be interpreted, “a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt”

Holding that a now-private corporation could not assert sovereign immunity in a suit involving events that occurred when the entity was owned by a foreign sovereign

Holding that if a defendant fails to support one element of a defense, "the trial court and jury need not be burdened with testimony supporting other elements"

Holding that where a defense “excuse conduct that would otherwise be punishable,” but “does not controvert any of the elements of the offense itself,” the Government has no constitutional duty to overcome the defense beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that the size of a governing body is not subject to a Section 2 vote dilution challenge

Holding that acquiescence "requires only that government officials know of or remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their legal responsibility to prevent it"

Holding that the presumption of uniformity gives way “[w]here the subject-matter to which the words refer is not the same in the several places where they are used”

Holding that, to establish a private cause of action for material support of terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 2333, 2339A, "the plaintiffs must be able to show that [the murder of their son by Hamas] was a reasonably foreseeable result of [defendants'] making a donation" to Hamas

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver

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”

Applying "clearly and beyond doubt" burden to "proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival" or "[a]liens present in the United States without being admitted"