§

In the Matter of Tayabji

19 I&N Dec. 264 (B.I.A. 1985)
In the Matter of Tayabji

21 Cited authorities

  1. Schweiker v. Hansen

    450 U.S. 785 (1981)   Cited 717 times
    Holding that a Social Security manual did not bind the Social Security Administration because it is not a regulation and has “no legal force”

  2. INS v. Miranda

    459 U.S. 14 (1982)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that negligent conduct is an insufficient basis for an estoppel claim against the government

  3. U.S. Philips Corp.

    414 U.S. 5 (1973)   Cited 202 times
    Holding that estoppel did not toll the Act's statutory deadline

  4. Consolidation Coal Co. v. South-East Coal Co.

    402 U.S. 983 (1971)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that federal district court's decision on question of federal law was not a binding precedent for the Illinois courts

  5. Montana v. Kennedy

    366 U.S. 308 (1961)   Cited 105 times
    Holding that the government could not be estopped from denying the citizenship of a petitioner whose mother was prevented from returning to the United States before his birth by the incorrect advice of an immigration officer

  6. Dong Sik Kwon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

    646 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 67 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that internal INS procedures "furnish only general guidance for service employees" and do not have the force of law

  7. Akbarin v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv

    669 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1982)   Cited 39 times
    Explaining that "the Supreme Court [has] held that a Social Security Administration official's oral advice ... that [plaintiff] was ineligible for certain benefits when in fact she was [eligible] did not estop the Government from denying her retroactive benefits for which she did not apply in time because of the oral advice"

  8. Silverman v. Rogers

    437 F.2d 102 (1st Cir. 1970)   Cited 44 times
    Rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that "to allow the government to refuse [an alien spouse] the right to reside in the United States would deprive [them] of their constitutional rights" (citing Swartz , 254 F.2d at 339 )

  9. Mendez v. Major

    340 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 42 times
    Concluding that because Congress has the power to determine the conditions under which an alien may enter and stay in the United States, enforcement of the laws does not violate any due process rights of the children

  10. Montilla v. United States

    457 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1972)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that a "plaintiff is charged with knowledge of [statutes passed by Congress]"

  11. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,688 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

  12. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,900 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  13. Section 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence

    8 U.S.C. § 1255   Cited 2,893 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Listing classes of nonimmigrants, such as students and tourists

  14. Section 1155 - Revocation of approval of petitions; effective date

    8 U.S.C. § 1155   Cited 217 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to revoke visa status petitions

  15. 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

  16. Section 212.7 - Waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility

    8 C.F.R. § 212.7   Cited 150 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring payment

  17. Section 246.3 - Allegations contested or denied; hearing requested

    8 C.F.R. § 246.3   Cited 10 times

    If, within the prescribed time following service of the notice pursuant to § 246.1 , the respondent has filed an answer which contests or denies any allegation in the notice, or a hearing is requested, a hearing pursuant to § 246.5 shall be conducted by an immigration judge, and the requirements contained in §§ 240.3 , 240.4 , 240.5 , 240.6 , 240.7 , and 240.9 of this chapter shall be followed. 8 C.F.R. §246.3

  18. Section 63.6 - Assignment of United States Government employees to consult, lecture, teach, engage in research, or demonstrate special skills

    22 C.F.R. § 63.6   Cited 6 times

    An employee of the United States Government who has been assigned for service abroad to consult, lecture, teach, engage in research, or demonstrate special skills, may be entitled to any or all of the following benefits when authorized by the Agency. (a)Transportation. Transportation and miscellaneous expenses in the United States and abroad, including baggage charges, and per diem in lieu of subsistence at the maximum rates allowable while in a travel status in accordance with the provisions of

  19. Section 246.4 - Immigration judge's authority; withdrawal and substitution

    8 C.F.R. § 246.4   Cited 2 times

    In any proceeding conducted under this part, the immigration judge shall have authority to interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the respondent and other witnesses, to present and receive evidence, to determine whether adjustment of status shall be rescinded, to make decisions thereon, including an appropriate order, and to take any other action consistent with applicable provisions of law and regulations as may be appropriate to the disposition of the case. Nothing contained in this part shall