Holding insufficient-evidence claim with respect to a voluntary departure determination "does not present a colorable constitutional claim capable of avoiding the jurisdictional bar"
Finding that housing provisions in city ordinances prohibiting unauthorized aliens from residing in any rental housing within the city constituted an impermissible regulation of residence based on immigration status, which was field preempted by alien harboring laws, and were also conflict preempted because they interfered with the federal government's discretion in deciding whether and when to initiate removal proceedings.
Holding that a local ordinance prohibiting rental housing for illegal aliens was not field preempted and did not conflict with the federal removal process, and where the ordinance specified it did not prohibit conduct “expressly permitted by federal law,” did not conflict with federal anti-harboring law
In Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2004), for example, we upheld an IJ's determination that the alien was not credible when he claimed that he thought his checking of the "citizen or national" box might be a truthful representation that he was a non-citizen national.
Holding that, where alien presents no evidence other than his own testimony disputing claim that he did not intend to deceive immigration authorities, there is no error in concluding alien failed to meet burden of showing admissibility
Upholding inadmissibility determination because the petitioner had unambiguously represented in another employer form he was a United States citizen and because he "admitted at the hearing that he knew a person born in the United States is a United States citizen"
Finding substantial evidence supported the determination of inadmissability because the petitioner "testified that he did not know what a national was and also that a citizen was a person born in the United States [h]e knew that he was not born in the United States and was not a United States citizen"
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,401 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”
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 Cited 312 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"