§
In re J-H-J

12 Cited authorities

  1. Martinez v. Mukasey

    519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 92 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for statutory bar to § 212(h) waiver to apply, "when the alien is granted permission, after inspection, to enter the United States, he must then be admitted as an LPR"

  2. Hanif v. Attorney Gen. of United States

    694 F.3d 479 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 212(h) precludes a waiver only for those persons who had attained the status of lawful permanent resident at the time they lawfully entered into the United States

  3. Roberts v. Holder

    745 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2014)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding in favor of the government's position, but acknowledging that “[r]eading § 1182(h) in isolation, one might conclude ... that the meaning of ‘admitted’ is clear”

  4. Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder

    741 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the type of "admission" needed for purposes of a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 212(h)

  5. Lanier v. U.S. Attorney General

    631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 31 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing definition refers to immigration status, regardless of how or when it was obtained

  6. Papazoglou v. Holder

    725 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 12–2372. 2013-08-6 Dimitrios PAPAZOGLOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Maria T. Baldini–Potermin, Attorney, Maria Baldini–Potermin & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Sheri R. Glaser, Attorney, OIL, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ROVNER Maria T. Baldini–Potermin, Attorney, Maria Baldini–Potermin & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Sheri R. Glaser, Attorney, OIL, Attorney, Department of Justice

  7. Leiba v. Holder

    699 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 2012)   Cited 13 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "for aliens such as [the petitioner]," "who never entered this country legally but who ha[ve] adjusted to LPR status," "it is arguable that the date of their status adjustment should be used as a proxy for their date of admission to avoid an absurd result" under § 1227

  8. Medina-Rosales v. Holder

    778 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2015)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that "favoring one category of LPRs over another is arbitrary"

  9. Husic v. Holder

    776 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. 14–607. 2015-01-8 Hasim HUSIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent. Michael P. DiRaimondo (Marialaina L. Masi, Thomas E. Moseley, Stacy A. Huber, on the brief), DiRaimondo & Masi, LLP, Melville, NY, for Petitioner. Yedidya Cohen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation; Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Jennifer Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department

  10. Stanovsek v. Holder

    768 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing “distinction is very hard to see,” but concluding that statutory language clearly excludes those who adjust to LPR

  11. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,902 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  12. Section 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence

    8 U.S.C. § 1255   Cited 2,894 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Listing classes of nonimmigrants, such as students and tourists