§

In the Matter of Singh

13 I&N Dec. 439 (B.I.A. 1969)
In the Matter of Singh

23 Cited authorities

  1. Jaben v. United States

    381 U.S. 214 (1965)   Cited 277 times
    In Jaben v. United States, the Court considered whether there was probable cause to support a complaint charging petitioner with willfully filing a false tax return.

  2. E.I. Dupont de Nemours Co. v. Davis

    264 U.S. 456 (1924)   Cited 208 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that train-loading-delay claims that arose while the government was operating a railroad pursuant to a wartime seizure were exempt from the statute of limitations

  3. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Harriman

    227 U.S. 657 (1913)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that " provision requiring suit to be brought within ninety days is not unreasonable"; and enforcing that provision in a contract involving interstate commerce, even though the limitation period was shorter than that permitted by state law, because the state law was preempted by the "general common law"

  4. D'Onofrio Construction Company v. Recon Co.

    255 F.2d 904 (1st Cir. 1958)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that “Rule 14 cannot be used to effect substantive results ....”

  5. Jaben v. United States

    333 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1964)   Cited 24 times

    No. 17566. June 16, 1964. Rehearing Denied July 9, 1964. Certiorari Granted October 19, 1964. See 85 S.Ct. 150. Bernard J. Mellman, St. Louis, Mo., made argument for appellant and filed brief with Morris A. Shenker and Emanuel Shapiro, St. Louis, Mo., and James Patrick Quinn, Kansas City, Mo. K. William O'Connor, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., made argument for appellee and filed brief with Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph M. Howard, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D

  6. Waziri v. U.S. Immigration and Nat. Serv

    392 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 15 times
    In Waziri v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 392 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1968), this court held that where a petitioner has been ordered deported on the basis of an underlying order rescinding the petitioner's adjustment of status, "[t]he interdependency of the two orders requires that the [§ 1105a] power of review extend to the order rescinding" an adjustment of status.

  7. Errico v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv

    349 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    No. 19282. July 9, 1965. Rehearing Denied August 14, 1965. Frank M. Ierulli, Gerald H. Robinson, Portland, Or., for petitioner. Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., Charles Elmer Collett, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Before MERRILL, DUNIWAY, and ELY, Circuit Judges. ELY, Circuit Judge: Petitioner, now thirty-one years of age, emigrated from his native Italy and, with his wife, gained admission to the United States on October 17, 1959. His parents and all of his brothers and sisters

  8. Quintana v. Holland

    255 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1958)   Cited 11 times
    In Quintana the District Director had filed within the five-year period a notice of intention to rescind appellant's adjustment of status on the ground that he was a member of the Communist Party.

  9. Sherman v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

    350 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    No. 521, Docket 29487. Argued June 9, 1965. Decided September 22, 1965. Rehearing En Banc Submitted December 23, 1965. Decided January 17, 1966. Ira Gollobin, New York City, for petitioner. Francis J. Lyons, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., James G. Greilsheimer, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., for respondent. Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. DECISION OF

  10. Rodriques v. Immigration Naturalization

    389 F.2d 129 (3d Cir. 1968)   Cited 1 times

    No. 16098. Argued October 30, 1967. Decided January 15, 1968. Lawrence Cooper, Schapira, Steiner Walder, Newark, N.J., for petitioner. Merna B. Marshall, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent. Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and GANEY, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT GANEY, Circuit Judge. This is a petition for review of an order of the Board of Appeals dismissing an appeal from an order of deportation entered after hearing by a Special Inquiry Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization

  11. Section 1256 - Rescission of adjustment of status; effect upon naturalized citizen

    8 U.S.C. § 1256   Cited 117 times
    Providing for rescission of adjusted status if within five years it appears the alien "was not in fact eligible for such adjustment of status" when it was granted

  12. Section 246.1 - Notice

    8 C.F.R. § 246.1   Cited 25 times
    Implementing 8 U.S.C. § 1256

  13. Section 246.5 - Hearing

    8 C.F.R. § 246.5

    (a)Service counsel. The Government shall be represented at the hearing by a Service counsel who shall have authority to present evidence, and to interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the respondent and other witnesses. The Service counsel is authorized to appeal from a decision of the immigration judge pursuant to § 246.7 and to move for reopening or reconsideration pursuant to § 3.23 of this chapter. (b)Opening. The immigration judge shall advise the respondent of the nature of the proceeding