§
In re Nchifor

23 Cited authorities

  1. Fort Bend Cnty., Tex., v. Davis

    139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019)   Cited 1,284 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prerequisites to suit such as Title VII's charge-filing precondition are not jurisdictional in nature

  2. Henderson v. Shinseki

    562 U.S. 428 (2011)   Cited 1,561 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. Pereira v. Sessions

    138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018)   Cited 1,068 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an NTA that omitted the "time or place of the removal proceedings" failed to comply with the requirements of § 239 and was insufficient to trigger the so-called "stop-time rule" of INA § 240A(d)

  4. Kontrick v. Ryan

    540 U.S. 443 (2004)   Cited 1,673 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that time limit for objection in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional but instead a claim-processing rule

  5. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong

    575 U.S. 402 (2015)   Cited 703 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the time limits of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) may be equitably tolled

  6. Niz-Chavez v. Garland

    141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)   Cited 390 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an NTA must consist of "a single document" containing all requisite information

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

    568 U.S. 145 (2013)   Cited 498 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

  8. Pierre-Paul v. Barr

    930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019)   Cited 219 times
    Holding Pereira limited to the narrow stop-time rule context

  9. Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that the time-and-place requirement for a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229 is not jurisdictional

  10. Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr

    924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019)   Cited 72 times
    Finding no prejudice

  11. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,319 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 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,101 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”

  13. Section 1229 - Initiation of removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229   Cited 1,350 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing service by mail

  14. Section 1229c - Voluntary departure

    8 U.S.C. § 1229c   Cited 1,008 times
    Imposing statutory penalties for failure to depart

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

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2   Cited 7,785 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting power to Board