In re Yun-Xia Chen

17 Cited authorities

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
519 U.S. 337 (1997) Cited 2,477 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII
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)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 (1987) Cited 2,395 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous
Russello v. United States
464 U.S. 16 (1983) Cited 2,100 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"
INS v. Abudu
485 U.S. 94 (1988) Cited 1,172 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"
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) Cited 389 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an NTA must consist of "a single document" containing all requisite information
Railroad Trainmen v. B. O.R. Co.
331 U.S. 519 (1947) Cited 550 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that if a party has an unconditional statutory right to intervene, that party's “right to intervene [under Rule 24(a)(1) ] is absolute and unconditional”
Estrada- Cardona v. Garland
44 F.4th 1275 (10th Cir. 2022) Cited 8 times
Reasoning that despite petitioner's cursory argument before the Board, the appellate court was unable to discern the basis for the Board's decision
Cantor v. Garland
17 F.4th 869 (9th Cir. 2021) Cited 6 times
No. 19-73085 11-03-2021 Domingo QUEBRADO CANTOR, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. Luis Cortes Romero (argued), Novo Legal Group PLLC, Kent, Washington; Elaine Ruth Fordyce, Law Office of Shara Svendsen PLLC, Mill Creek, Washington; for Petitioner. Lance L. Jolley (argued), Trial Attorney; Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. McKEOWN, Circuit
Parada v. Garland
48 F.4th 374 (5th Cir. 2022) Cited 3 times
No. 19-60425 09-01-2022 Gemima Ivette PARADA; Stephanie Alexandra Parada, Petitioners, v. Merrick GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioners. Todd Jason Cochran, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioners. Todd Jason Cochran, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,750 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,307 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”
Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
8 U.S.C. § 1229b Cited 5,094 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”
Section 1229 - Initiation of removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229 Cited 1,347 times 5 Legal Analyses
Authorizing service by mail
Section 1003.2 - Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 Cited 7,780 times 7 Legal Analyses
Granting power to Board
Section 1241.1 - Final order of removal
8 C.F.R. § 1241.1 Cited 323 times
Discussing when a removal order becomes final

In re Yun-Xia Chen

17 Cited authorities

Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII

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)

Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

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"

Holding that an NTA must consist of "a single document" containing all requisite information

Holding that if a party has an unconditional statutory right to intervene, that party's “right to intervene [under Rule 24(a)(1) ] is absolute and unconditional”

Reasoning that despite petitioner's cursory argument before the Board, the appellate court was unable to discern the basis for the Board's decision

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

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”

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”

Authorizing service by mail

Granting power to Board

Discussing when a removal order becomes final