§
In the Matter of Patel

17 Cited authorities

  1. Addington v. Texas

    441 U.S. 418 (1979)   Cited 2,671 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the individual's interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence"

  2. Bradley v. Richmond School Board

    416 U.S. 696 (1974)   Cited 1,464 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," unless such application would work a manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary

  3. Lutwak v. United States

    344 U.S. 604 (1953)   Cited 938 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Distinguishing between an actual “agreement to conceal” and “an afterthought by the conspirator for the purpose of covering up”

  4. Marshall v. Gibson's Products, Inc. of Plano

    584 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that "[i]t is incumbent on a court of the United States, whether trial or appellate, to dismiss an action whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, and the court must do so sua sponte if the parties have not brought the issue to the attention of the court."

  5. Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

    511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that the test for bona fide marriage is whether the couple "intend[ed] to establish a life together at the time they were married"

  6. DeGurules v. I.N.S.

    833 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 22 times

    Nos. 86-7353, 86-7106. Submitted February 20, 1987. Submission Vacated May 29, 1987. Resubmitted September 10, 1987 — 86-7353. October 21, 1987 — 86-7106. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). Decided December 7, 1987. Manuel J. Monquia, Escondido, Cal., for petitioner Hernandez-Leguizamo. Jan Joseph Bejar, San Diego, Cal., for petitioner DeGurules. Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., James A. Hunolt

  7. City of Great Falls v. U.S. Dept. of Labor

    673 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 16 times
    In Great Falls, prior to the effective date of the 1978 amendment, a job applicant filed a grievance pursuant to CETA regulation because the City of Great Falls ("the City"), a CETA fund recipient, denied the applicant employment pursuant to an unwritten anti-nepotism policy.

  8. United States v. Mastrangelo

    561 F. Supp. 1114 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Approving of similar definition

  9. LTV Federal Credit Union v. UMIC Government Securities, Inc.

    704 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 7 times

    No. 81-1533. May 6, 1983. Jim K. Choate, W.S. Barron, Jr., John P. Lilly, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant. Pettit Martin, Kerry C. Smith, San Francisco, Cal., Johnson, Swanson Barbee, Charles R. Haworth, Dallas, Tex., for Banco de la Nacion Argentina. Martin, Tate, Morrow Marston, Shepherd D. Tate, W. Thomas Hutton, S. Shepherd Tate, Memphis, Tenn., for UMIC Government Securities, Inc. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Before BROWN, GEE and JOLLY

  10. Patel v. Minnix

    663 F.2d 1042 (11th Cir. 1981)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming district court's decision to enter summary judgment upholding INS's decision to deny change of visa status

  11. Section 1153 - Allocation of immigrant visas

    8 U.S.C. § 1153   Cited 1,241 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Determining an applicant's age as " the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien . . . but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by (B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition . . . was pending"

  12. Section 1154 - Procedure for granting immigrant status

    8 U.S.C. § 1154   Cited 1,182 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting immigrant status

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

    8 C.F.R. § 204.1   Cited 307 times
    Delimiting jurisdiction over immediate relative and family-sponsored visa petitions

  14. Section 103.5 - Reopening or reconsideration

    8 C.F.R. § 103.5   Cited 216 times
    Authorizing officers to exercise their discretion to excuse untimely filing of motion to reopen or reconsider where movant demonstrates that delay was reasonable and beyond the movant's control