§

In re Bay Area Legal Servs.

Interim Decision #3984 (B.I.A. 2020)
In re Bay Area Legal Servs.

31 Cited authorities

  1. Gonzalez v. Thaler

    565 U.S. 134 (2012)   Cited 4,405 times
    Holding that the statutory requirement that a habeas corpus petitioner obtain a certificate of appealability is not jurisdictional

  2. Henderson v. Shinseki

    562 U.S. 428 (2011)   Cited 1,655 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be "clear indication that Congress wanted the rule to be jurisdictional," although Congress "need not use magic words" (cleaned up)

  3. Kontrick v. Ryan

    540 U.S. 443 (2004)   Cited 1,716 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that time limit for objection in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional but instead a claim-processing rule

  4. Eberhart v. U.S.

    546 U.S. 12 (2005)   Cited 848 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government forfeited application of a claim-processing rule because its opposition did not invoke that rule

  5. Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr.

    568 U.S. 145 (2013)   Cited 515 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the presumption in favor of equitable tolling does not apply" to a nonjurisdictional agency appeal deadline given the statutory history and administrative context

  6. Lozano v. Alvarez

    572 U.S. 1 (2014)   Cited 434 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Hague Convention requires the return of the child to the parent who possess a single right of custody—even a joint right—that is violated by the child's removal

  7. Above Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.

    99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983)   Cited 1,318 times
    Holding that a motion to reconsider lies where "the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension"

  8. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert

    139 S. Ct. 710 (2019)   Cited 130 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 23(f)'s time limitation is not jurisdictional

  9. Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries, Inc.

    476 U.S. 1141 (1986)   Cited 135 times
    Finding that under New Jersey law, statements made to a legislative body are absolutely privileged, even when made voluntarily and not under oath, if the statements are related to the subject matter of proceedings that are properly within the jurisdiction of the legislative body conducting them

  10. Fed. Land Bank v. Bismarck Co.

    314 U.S. 95 (1941)   Cited 324 times
    Holding that "the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle."

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 36,378 times   1258 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  12. Section 557 - Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency; submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record

    5 U.S.C. § 557   Cited 751 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Providing that in an administrative appeal, the agency "has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule"

  13. Rule 40 - Petition for Panel Rehearing

    Fed. R. App. P. 40   Cited 654 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Granting a party fourteen days from the entry of judgment to file a petition for rehearing

  14. Section 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1324a   Cited 595 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief and criminal sanctions in federal district court

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

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2   Cited 7,832 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting power to Board

  16. Section 1292.1 - Representation of others

    8 C.F.R. § 1292.1   Cited 29 times
    Regarding admission to practice in the immigration courts

  17. Section 292.2 - Organizations qualified for recognition; requests for recognition; withdrawal of recognition; accreditation of representatives; roster

    8 C.F.R. § 292.2   Cited 17 times

    (a)Qualifications of organizations. A non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization established in the United States and recognized as such by the Board may designate a representative or representatives to practice before the Service alone or the Service and the Board (including practice before the Immigration Court). Such organization must establish to the satisfaction of the Board that: (1) It makes only nominal charges and assesses no excessive membership dues for persons

  18. Section 20.1001 - Rule 1001. When reconsideration is accorded

    38 C.F.R. § 20.1001   Cited 9 times

    Reconsideration of an appellate decision may be accorded at any time by the Board of Veterans' Appeals on motion by the appellant or his or her representative or on the Board's own motion: (a) Upon allegation of obvious error of fact or law; (b) Upon discovery of new evidence in the form of relevant records or reports of the service department concerned; or (c) Upon allegation that an allowance of benefits by the Board has been materially influenced by false or fraudulent evidence submitted by or

  19. Section 1292.12 - Accreditation of representatives

    8 C.F.R. § 1292.12   Cited 6 times
    Providing for accreditation of non-attorneys to represent clients before immigration courts

  20. Section 1292.11 - Recognition of an organization

    8 C.F.R. § 1292.11   Cited 2 times

    (a)In general. The Assistant Director for Policy (or the Assistant Director for Policy's delegate), in the exercise of discretion, may recognize an eligible organization to provide representation through accredited representatives who appear on behalf of clients before the Immigration Courts, the Board, and DHS, or DHS alone. The Assistant Director for Policy (or the Assistant Director for Policy's delegate) will determine whether an organization is eligible for recognition. To be eligible for recognition

  21. Section 1292.16 - Renewal of recognition and accreditation

    8 C.F.R. § 1292.16   Cited 1 times

    (a)In general. To retain its recognition and the accreditation of its representatives after the conclusion of the validity period specified in § 1292.11(f) or § 1292.12(d) , an organization must submit a request for renewal of its recognition or the accreditation of its representatives (Form EOIR-31, Form EOIR-31A, and supporting documents). In the exercise of discretion, as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, the Assistant Director for Policy (or the Assistant Director for Policy's delegate)

  22. Section 68.54 - Administrative review of a final order of an Administrative Law Judge in cases arising under section 274A or 274C

    28 C.F.R. § 68.54   Cited 1 times

    (a)Authority of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. In a case arising under section 274A or 274C of the INA, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer has discretionary authority, pursuant to sections 274A(e)(7) and 274C(d)(4) of the INA and 5 U.S.C. 557 , to review any final order of an Administrative Law Judge in accordance with the provisions of this section. (1) A party may file with the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer a written request for administrative review within ten (10) days

  23. Section 1292.13 - Applying for recognition of organizations or accreditation of representatives

    8 C.F.R. § 1292.13   Cited 1 times

    (a)In general. An organization applying for recognition or accreditation of a representative must submit a request for recognition (Form EOIR-31) or a request for accreditation (Form EOIR-31A) to the Assistant Director for Policy (or the Assistant Director for Policy's delegate) with proof of service of a copy of the request on the appropriate USCIS office(s) in the jurisdictions where the organization offers or intends to offer immigration legal services. An organization must submit a separate request

  24. Section 1292.18 - Administrative review of denied requests for reconsideration

    8 C.F.R. § 1292.18

    (a)Authority of the Director. The Director has the discretionary authority to review a request for reconsideration pursuant to § 1292.13(e) , § 1292.16(f) , or § 1292.17(d) that has been denied. (1) An organization whose request for reconsideration pursuant to § 1292.13(e) , § 1292.16(f) , or § 1292.17(d) has been denied may request administrative review from the Director within ten (10) days of the denial, identifying the alleged factual or legal errors in the underlying determination. The request