Carlson v. Landon

Holding that mandatory detention of Communist noncitizens in removal proceedings does not violate the Due Process Clause

United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Holding "[d]etermination of the relevant market is a necessary predicate to a finding of" unlawful merger under 15 U.S.C. § 18

Leng May Ma v. Barber

Holding that an alien's parole into the United States "did not alter her status as an excluded alien"

United States v. Witkovich

Holding that government authority under a statute to require noncitizens to answer such questions "as the Attorney General may deem fit and proper" is limited to questions "reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens whose deportation is overdue"

Wong Wing Hang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Noting that "the denial of suspension to an eligible alien would be an abuse of discretion if it were," inter alia, grounded "on an impermissible basis such as . . . considerations that Congress could not have intended to make relevant"

Jarecha v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

United States v. Dist. Director of Im. Nat

In United States ex rel. Potash v. District Director, 169 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1948), a district court construed the predecessor statute to § 242 as placing the authority to determine the question of bail pending deportation proceedings in the hands of the Attorney General because those entrusted with the enforcement of deportation laws ordinarily are considered best qualified to rule on those questions.

Fook Hong Mak v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

In Fook Hong Mak v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 435 F.2d 728 (2nd Cir., 1970), it was acknowledged that the Attorney General could, in the exercise of his statutorily granted discretion, deny certain benefits to an alien who otherwise met the requirements for obtaining those benefits, so long as the discretion was rationally exercised.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM BO

Giving an example of the form

Rubinstein v. Brownell

In Rubinstein v. Brownell, 92 U.S.App. D.C. 328, 331, 206 F.2d 449, 452, a deportation case, we had no occasion to point out that § 360(c) does not apply to all exclusion cases.

Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Section 1101 - Definitions

Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Section 1103 - Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General

Granting the Attorney General power to "establish such regulations" and "review . . . administrative determinations in immigration proceedings"

Section 1184 - Admission of nonimmigrants

Creating exceptions to caps, including separate quota of 20,000 for nonimmigrants with master's or higher degree

Section 1105 - Liaison with internal security officers; data exchange

Stating that review of orders of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals is taken by filing a petition in a court of appeals

Section 103.6 - Immigration bonds

Governing surety bonds

Section 0.105 - General functions

Describing the INS's function as administrator and enforcer of U.S. immigration laws