Heckler v. Chaney

Holding that a statute did not provide meaningful standards because it did not "speak to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the [statute]"

Wayte v. United States

Holding that government policy of prosecuting "only those who report themselves as having violated the law" did not violate the First Amendment, because, inter alia, it promoted prosecutorial efficiency and, by "prosecuting visible" violators, "was thought to be an effective way to promote general deterrence"

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza

Holding that "deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws."

Garza-Moreno v. Gonzales

Holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure

Mickeviciute v. I.N.S.

Recognizing that the BIA may deny a motion to reopen on the same grounds that it denies "the underlying substantive relief sought"

Malilia v. Holder

Concluding that the IJ abused his discretion by denying a continuance even though the visa application process could have taken "months or even years"

Sarr v. Gonzales

Recognizing that a petitioner who fails to demonstrate entitlement to asylum cannot as a matter of law meet the more onerous burden for withholding of removal or the more stringent requirements of the CAT

Vahora v. Holder

Holding that a teenager targeted after he witnessed a murder, who was chased from his home by the perpetrators, who was repeatedly and menacingly sought after his departure, and whose grandparents' home was burned, had not established past persecution

American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh

Approving settlement agreement in class action concerning challenges to the processing of asylum applications filed by Guatemalans and Salvadorans

Citifinancial Corp. v. Harrison

Noting that, as a matter of respect and institutional orderliness, if not jurisdiction, a district court judge should shy away from involvement in a case proceeding before another Article III judge

Section 1227 - Deportable aliens

Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

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”

Section 1229 - Initiation of removal proceedings

Requiring notice of the "acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law" and the "charges against the" noncitizen

Section 1003.2 - Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals

Granting power to Board

Section 1003.29 - Continuances

Authorizing continuances

Section 1003.14 - Jurisdiction and commencement of proceedings

Recognizing that removal proceedings commence "when a charging document is filed with the Immigration court"

Section 1003.23 - Reopening or reconsideration before the immigration court

Setting a 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen if the applicant does not seek rescission of an in absentia removal order or fall into another exception listed in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)

Section 1240.11 - Ancillary matters, applications

Requiring the immigration judge to inform an alien of his "apparent eligibility" for relief from removal

Section 1240.1 - Immigration judges

Granting immigration judge in removal proceeding authority to determine applications for adjustment of status

Section 1003.10 - Immigration judges

Authorizing Director to "designate . . . temporary immigration judges for renewable terms not to exceed six months"

Section 239.1 - Notice to appear

Listing executive branch officers authorized to issue Notices to Appear

Section 1239.1 - Notice to appear

Section 239.2 - Cancellation of notice to appear

Allowing an officer to dismiss a case after proceedings have begun on the same grounds