§

In the Matter of Arteaga-Godoy

14 I&N Dec. 226 (B.I.A. 1972)
In the Matter of Arteaga-Godoy

7 Cited authorities

  1. Flast v. Cohen

    392 U.S. 83 (1968)   Cited 3,136 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that taxpayers have an adequate stake in the outcome of Establishment Clause litigation to satisfy Article III standing requirements, after stating that "[o]ur history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by those who drafted the Establishment Clause and fought for its adoption was that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general"

  2. Data Processing Service v. Camp

    397 U.S. 150 (1970)   Cited 2,470 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]here can be no doubt" that the plaintiffs have Article III standing because they "allege that competition [resulting from the challenged regulation] might entail some future loss of profits for [them]"

  3. Barlow v. Collins

    397 U.S. 159 (1970)   Cited 689 times
    Holding that taxpayers have standing to challenge the validity or application of a taxing statute in determining their tax obligations

  4. Sin v. Esperdy

    239 F. Supp. 903 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)   Cited 9 times
    In Hom Sin v. Esperdy, supra, 239 F. Supp. at 906, the court quoted with approval the Immigration and Naturalization Service's petition which admitted congressional concern for an employer in a Section 1154(b) determination.

  5. Pacheco Pereira v. I.N.S.

    342 F.2d 422 (1st Cir. 1965)   Cited 6 times

    No. 6429. Heard March 2, 1965. Decided March 18, 1965. William F. Long, Jr., Fall River, Mass., for appellant. John M. Callahan, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U.S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, and GIGNOUX, District Judge. Sitting by designation. PER CURIAM. This is a petition to review a decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, hereinafter Service, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, in which

  6. Section 103.2 - [Effective until 4/1/2024] Submission and adjudication of benefit requests

    8 C.F.R. § 103.2   Cited 474 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Explaining process for requesting evidence or notifying of intent to deny petition

  7. Section 204.1 - General information about immediate relative and family-sponsored petitions

    8 C.F.R. § 204.1   Cited 258 times
    Delimiting jurisdiction over immediate relative and family-sponsored visa petitions