§
In re Castro-Tum

74 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 38,587 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

  2. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,516 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

  3. National Cable Telecom. Assn. v. Brand X Internet S

    545 U.S. 967 (2005)   Cited 1,189 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency is free within "the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course" only if it "adequately justifies the change"

  4. Stone v. INS

    514 U.S. 386 (1995)   Cited 1,096 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the IJ's removal order and the Board's denial of a motion to reopen are “two separate final orders”

  5. Yates v. United States

    574 U.S. 528 (2015)   Cited 527 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in light of a statute's illustrative list, "tangible object" covers "only objects one can use to record or preserve information, not all objects in the physical world"

  6. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.

    513 U.S. 561 (1995)   Cited 1,020 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 12 does not apply to secondary market transactions as the statute's inclusion of the term “prospectus” evinces an intent to limit the Sections's scope solely to the initial public offering

  7. INS v. Doherty

    502 U.S. 314 (1992)   Cited 1,117 times
    Holding that a regulation with the same formulation established a necessary but not sufficient condition

  8. INS v. Abudu

    485 U.S. 94 (1988)   Cited 1,190 times
    Holding that the BIA may deny a motion to reopen if "the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought"

  9. Securities Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.

    332 U.S. 194 (1947)   Cited 4,201 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if the agency rests its decision on "grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis"

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co.

    416 U.S. 267 (1974)   Cited 759 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"

  11. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,422 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”

  12. Section 1229 - Initiation of removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229   Cited 1,379 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing service by mail

  13. Section 1252b - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 1252b   Cited 397 times
    Stating that time-and-place information could be provided "in the order to show cause or otherwise"

  14. Section 1232 - Enhancing efforts to combat the trafficking of children

    8 U.S.C. § 1232   Cited 164 times
    Adopting the definition of UAC in Title 6

  15. Section 279 - Children's affairs

    6 U.S.C. § 279   Cited 110 times
    Defining an "unaccompanied alien child" as someone who "has not attained 18 years of age"

  16. Section 1003.29 - Continuances

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.29   Cited 663 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing continuances

  17. Section 1003.14 - Jurisdiction and commencement of proceedings

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.14   Cited 488 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that removal proceedings commence "when a charging document is filed with the Immigration court"

  18. Section 1240.1 - Immigration judges

    8 C.F.R. § 1240.1   Cited 172 times
    Granting immigration judge in removal proceeding authority to determine applications for adjustment of status

  19. Section 212.7 - Waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility

    8 C.F.R. § 212.7   Cited 150 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring payment

  20. Section 1003.10 - Immigration judges

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.10   Cited 85 times
    Authorizing Director to "designate . . . temporary immigration judges for renewable terms not to exceed six months"

  21. Section 1003.26 - In absentia hearings

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.26   Cited 44 times
    Requiring DHS to establish that written notice of the time and place of proceedings, as well as the consequences of failure to appear, was provided to the alien

  22. Section 103.8 - Service of decisions and other notices

    8 C.F.R. § 103.8   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring service on someone other than minor only if minor is younger than fourteen

  23. Section 1240.6 - Postponement and adjournment of hearing

    8 C.F.R. § 1240.6   Cited 16 times
    Authorizing adjournments

  24. Section 1236.3 - Detention and release of juveniles

    8 C.F.R. § 1236.3   Cited 14 times

    (a)Juveniles. A juvenile is defined as an alien under the age of 18 years. (b)Release. Juveniles for whom bond has been posted, for whom parole has been authorized, or who have been ordered released on recognizance, shall be released pursuant to the following guidelines: (1) Juveniles shall be released, in order of preference, to: (i) A parent; (ii) Legal guardian; or (iii) An adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent) who is not presently in Service detention, unless a determination

  25. Section 245a.12 - Filing and applications

    8 C.F.R. § 245a.12   Cited 8 times

    (a)When to file. The application period began on June 1, 2001, and ends on June 4, 2003. To benefit from the provisions of LIFE Legalization, an alien must properly file an application for adjustment of status, Form I-485, with appropriate fee, to the Service during the application period as described in this section. All applications, whether filed in the United States or filed from abroad, must be postmarked on or before June 4, 2003, to be considered timely filed. (1) If the postmark is illegible