§

In the Matter of Sanchez

20 I&N Dec. 223 (B.I.A. 1990)
In the Matter of Sanchez

11 Cited authorities

  1. Moody v. Daggett

    429 U.S. 78 (1976)   Cited 2,784 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under circumstances remarkably similar to those in instant case that parole commission was under no constitutional duty to adjudicate a parole-revocation warrant until that warrant was executed and the parolee taken into custody as a parole violator

  2. Campillo v. Sullivan

    853 F.2d 593 (8th Cir. 1988)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider challenge to an INS detainer where the petitioner was in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and not the INS

  3. Mohammed v. Sullivan

    866 F.2d 258 (8th Cir. 1989)   Cited 43 times
    Filing of an INS detainer with prison officials does not constitute the requisite "technical custody" for purposes of habeas jurisdiction

  4. Gaddy v. Michael

    519 F.2d 669 (4th Cir. 1975)   Cited 62 times
    Finding that former parolee's loss of prison privileges, opportunities to participate in programs, and gain time are not evidence of prejudice that would require invalidation of parole violation warrant

  5. Small v. Britton

    500 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1974)   Cited 45 times
    Upholding delayed proceedings in parole context

  6. Chung Young Chew v. Boyd

    309 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1962)   Cited 47 times
    Holding unauthenticated record inadmissible

  7. Cabezas v. Scott

    717 F. Supp. 696 (D. Ariz. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    No. CIV 88-457 GLO-RMB. January 27, 1989. Carlos Cabezas, Dublin, Cal., pro se. Gerald S. Frank, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., Alison Druker, Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for respondents. ORDER BILBY, Chief Judge. Petitioner is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has issued a Form I-247 "Immigration Detainer — Notice of Action by Immigration and Naturalization Service" and a Form I-221

  8. Young v. United States

    337 F.2d 753 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 8 times
    In Young, the Fifth Circuit denied section 2255 relief on the ground that the petitioner, a state prisoner seeking to vacate a prior federal sentence under which he had presumably been paroled, was not "in custody" under sentence of a federal court. Assuming arguendo that the "custody" in the present case is insufficient to satisfy Martin and is comparable to that found inadequate in Young, the reasoning of neither case suggests that coram nobis relief should be denied in the present circumstances.

  9. Slavik v. Miller

    89 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Pa. 1950)   Cited 10 times

    Civ. A. No. 7918. March 23, 1950. Michael Hahalyak, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Elliott W. Finkel, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent. GOURLEY, District Judge. The petitioner seeks to question the legality of a deportation order issued by the Attorney General of the United States through the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. The proceeding has been entitled "Petition for Review." Consideration must be given whether the action is proper under the

  10. Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

    8 U.S.C. § 1252   Cited 42,742 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

  11. Section 1251 - Transferred

    8 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 2,155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Delineating crimes that make alien deportable