§
In re Ortega-Lopez

14 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Stevens

    559 U.S. 460 (2010)   Cited 1,219 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications ... far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"

  2. Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder

    558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 189 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Chevron deference applies to published decisions but Skidmore deference applies to unpublished decisions

  3. Gill v. I.N.S.

    420 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that exhaustion requirements of § 1252(d) preclude petitioner from raising "whole new category of relief on appeal"

  4. Young v. Holder

    697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 112 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the cancellation of removal context that “an inconclusive record ... is insufficient to satisfy the alien's burden of proof”

  5. U.S. v. Stevens

    533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Deciding the constitutionality of a dog-fighting statute on strict scrutiny grounds alone

  6. Rohit v. Holder 

    670 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that solicitation of prostitution under California Penal Code §647(b) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude

  7. United States v. Gibert

    677 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2012)   Cited 22 times
    Finding that the jurisdictional hook in an animal fighting statute quells the concerns in Lopez and Morrison

  8. Humane Society of U.S. v. U.S. Postal Service

    609 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that the plaintiff organization who suffered impaired mission and increased costs because of the defendant's action had standing and could not be faulted for failing to name the specifics about the events, allowed by the defendant's rules, that were creating plaintiff's injury-in-fact

  9. U.S. v. Land, Winston County

    221 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 12 times

    No. 99-11830 August 8, 2000. Jim Waide, Tupelo, MS, for Claimant-Appellant. Shirley McCarty, James D. Ingram, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. (No. CV-96-HM-216-J. E.B. Haltom, Jr., Judge. Before EDMONDSON, HULL and WOOD, Circuit Judges. Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge: This case began in 1993 when the United

  10. 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"

  11. Section 1227 - Deportable aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1227   Cited 8,025 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

  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 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,202 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”

  14. Section 2156 - Animal fighting venture prohibition

    7 U.S.C. § 2156   Cited 132 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Amending the term "animal fighting venture" to include fights "to be conducted"