§

In re Lemus-Losa

Interim Decision #3745 (B.I.A. 2012)
In re Lemus-Losa

27 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,202 times   616 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Lamie v. U.S. Trustee

    540 U.S. 526 (2004)   Cited 2,180 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should not add an "absent word" to a statute

  3. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain

    503 U.S. 249 (1992)   Cited 2,743 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

  4. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Unionplanters Bank

    530 U.S. 1 (2000)   Cited 1,272 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1109(b) was "by its terms inapplicable" in case which had been "converted from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7"

  5. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson

    525 U.S. 432 (1999)   Cited 761 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain amendments to pension plans do not trigger fiduciary duties, as long as the plan is actuarily sound

  6. Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.

    458 U.S. 564 (1982)   Cited 1,271 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court has no discretion in the assessment of the double-wage penalty

  7. Demarest v. Manspeaker

    498 U.S. 184 (1991)   Cited 228 times
    Holding that prisoners who testify in federal court are entitled to witness fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1821, even though “prisoners are technically ‘produced’ under a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, rather than summoned by a subpoena”

  8. Herrera-Castillo v. Holder

    573 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 48 times
    Holding issue insufficiently raised in opening brief is deemed waived

  9. Padilla-Caldera v. Holder

    637 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2011)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 10-9520. March 14, 2011. As Corrected March 22, 2011. Submitted on the briefs: After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Lane McFee, Denver, CO, for Petitioner. Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, and Andrew N. O'Malley, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration

  10. Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey

    517 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 38 times
    Finding that "the terms of these statutes are amenable to multiple interpretations"

  11. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,901 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  12. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,392 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”

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

    8 U.S.C. § 1255   Cited 2,893 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Listing classes of nonimmigrants, such as students and tourists

  14. Section 1225 - Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing

    8 U.S.C. § 1225   Cited 1,297 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Setting standard for credible fear as "a significant possibility, taking into account the ... statements made by the alien ... and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum"

  15. Section 1245.10 - Adjustment of status upon payment of additional sum under section 245(i)

    8 C.F.R. § 1245.10   Cited 57 times
    Listing the eligibility requirements for an alien who entered without inspection and is seeking adjustment of status based on a labor certification