§

In the Matter of Garcia-Flores

17 I&N Dec. 325 (B.I.A. 1980)
In the Matter of Garcia-Flores

15 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Caceres

    440 U.S. 741 (1979)   Cited 857 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a criminal defendant could not enforce an internal governmental rule

  2. Morton v. Ruiz

    415 U.S. 199 (1974)   Cited 906 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]he power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created and funded program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress” but noting that “[n]o matter how rational or consistent with congressional intent a particular decision might be, [such decision] cannot be made on an ad hoc basis ...”

  3. Accardi v. Shaughnessy

    347 U.S. 260 (1954)   Cited 880 times
    Holding that Board of Immigration Appeals was required to follow its own regulations in deciding whether to suspend deportation

  4. Service v. Dulles

    354 U.S. 363 (1957)   Cited 579 times
    Holding that "[w]hile the Secretary was not obligated to impose upon himself these more rigorous substantive and procedural standards . . . having done so he could not, so long as the Regulations remained unchanged, proceed without regard to them"

  5. Vitarelli v. Seaton

    359 U.S. 535 (1959)   Cited 511 times
    Holding that, although Congress gave the Secretary of Interior absolute discretion to terminate an employee in the name of national security, the Secretary was nevertheless required to follow its own procedural rules when making such a determination

  6. American Farm Lines v. Black Ball

    397 U.S. 532 (1970)   Cited 312 times
    Holding that regulations pertaining to application materials were promulgated to assist the agency in exercising its discretion, and not for the benefit of the applicants

  7. Bridges v. Wixon

    326 U.S. 135 (1945)   Cited 461 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes

  8. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod

    263 U.S. 149 (1923)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that there is no "presumption of citizenship comparable to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. . . . To defeat deportation it is not always enough for the person arrested to stand mute at the hearing and put the Government upon its proof."

  9. United States v. Heffner

    420 F.2d 809 (4th Cir. 1969)   Cited 208 times
    Holding that IRS agents did not follow IRS instructions to special agents describing the "procedure for protecting the Constitutional rights of persons suspected of criminal tax fraud" when they interrogated the defendant because the agents did not warn defendant they investigate tax fraud or advise defendant that he could retain counsel, which violated the Accardi doctrine that requires an agency to observe the "rules, regulations, procedures which it has established"

  10. United States v. Calderon-Medina

    591 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that a claimant may only be granted relief based on a violation of an INS regulation if "the regulation serves a purpose of benefit to the alien" and "the violation prejudiced interests of the alien which were protected by the regulation"

  11. Section 1251 - Transferred

    8 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 2,154 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

  12. Section 287.3 - Disposition of cases of aliens arrested without warrant

    8 C.F.R. § 287.3   Cited 148 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that an alien arrested without a warrant and placed in formal proceedings be apprised of the reason for his arrest, his right to representation, and that any statement he makes may be used against him in a subsequent proceeding