Navigation



3957 search results for query united states board of immigration appeals


All

IN THE MATTER OF SAN, 15 IN Dec. 315 (BIA 1975) , 15 IN Dec. 315 (1975)

The decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals as they have been rendered with respect to nationals of the United States and particularly with respect of the question that I certify this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals for final decision.

IN THE MATTER OF E----, 1 IN Dec. 40 (BIA 1941) , 1 IN Dec. 40 (1941)

After consideration of this appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered that the son be regarded as an alien. It is the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the child is not a citizen of the United States. This is an instance of disagreement between the Consular Service of the Department of State and the Board of Immigration Appeals to which the Attorney

IN THE MATTER OF K---- H---- C----, 6 IN Dec. 295 (BIA 1954) , 6 IN Dec. 295 (1954)

Appeal — Jurisdiction of Board of Immigration Appeals — Denial of bail to excluded alien-8 C.F.R. 6.1 (b) (7), 242.2, and 212.9. Board of Immigration Appeals to review the determination of an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service denying bail to an alien who has of Immigration Appeals from the denial of administrative bail.

IN RE KWUN YU MA, 22 IN Dec. 67 (BIA 1998) , 22 IN Dec. 67 (1998)

Department of Justice Decided May 28, 1998 In considering the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Young v. The petitioner first filed an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the district court's jurisdictional finding, concluding that "[t]he agency

IN THE MATTER OF A----, 5 IN Dec. 144 (BIA 1953) , 5 IN Dec. 144 (1953)

the United States — American Samoa — section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A person born in American Samoa in 1926 is a national of the United States under section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, such provision The Board of Immigration Appeals has directed that this case be certified to that Board and the final order will be entered in this case by the Board.

IN THE MATTER OF LOK, 16 IN Dec. 441 (BIA 1978) , 16 IN Dec. 441 (1978)

(2) When United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that a respondent is statutorily The respondent appealed our decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In a decision issued on January 4, 1977, Lok v. INS,548 F.2d 37 (2 Cir. 1977), the United States Court of Appeals granted the respondent's petition for review and remanded the case toPage 442 this Board

IN THE MATTER OF S.S. FRED HERRLING, 3 IN Dec. 753 (BIA 1950) , 3 IN Dec. 753 (1949)

The Central Office affirmed the excluding order of the Board of Special Inquiry and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. The responsible party appealed from the order of this Service and on October 7, 1949, the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the appeal and terminated In any event the Board of Immigration Appeals and the courts have not followed the reasoning of the court in that case.

IN THE MATTER OF M----, 4 IN Dec. 189 (BIA 1951) , 4 IN Dec. 189 (1951)

EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa. The sole question to be determined at this time is the applicability to the instant case of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter In that case the Board of Immigration Appeals stated: It is our conclusion, therefore, that as a matter of law a reentry permit secured without fraud

IN RE OLIVARES-MARTINEZ, 23 IN Dec. 148 (BIA 2001) , 23 IN Dec. 148 (2001)

§ 16(b) (1994) for purposes of removability in cases arising in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; accordingly, in cases arising The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the Board's reasoning inCamacho-Marroquin v. the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

IN RE HERRERA, 23 IN Dec. 43 (BIA 2001) , 23 IN Dec. 43 (2001)

to reopen and reconsider, is granted in light of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United Statesv. United States. The request for a stay will be granted.Page 44 Since we issued our decision in the respondent's case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

IN RE M-D, 24 IN Dec. 138 (BIA 2007) , 24 IN Dec. 138 (2007)

(2) Although an Immigration Judge may not reconsider the prior decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals when a case is remanded for background checks any form of immigration relief in immigration proceedings would permit the alien to reside in the United States. [fn2] Although not binding in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over this case, a Third Circuit decision

IN RE KRIVONOS, 24 IN Dec. 292 (BIA 2007) , 24 IN Dec. 292 (2007)

A motion for reinstatement to practice filed by an attorney who was expelled from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts HURWITZ, Acting Vice Chairman: The respondent, who has been expelled from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, to practice law in the State of New York and before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

IN THE MATTER OF SWEED, 10 IN Dec. 688 (BIA 1964) , 10 IN Dec. 688 (1964)

The Board of Immigration Appeals on May 31, 1963 dismissed the respondent's appeal from the special inquiry officer's order. Thereafter, in October of 1963 the respondent moved the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the proceedings to permit further application for relief The Board of Immigration Appeals on November 14, 1963 ordered the hearing reopened for the consideration of such applications for discretionary relief

IN THE MATTER OF S---- H---- C---- C----, 4 IN Dec. 36 (BIA 1950) , 4 IN Dec. 36 (1950)

the 1924 act as interpreted by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, except as may be modified or overruled by the Board of Immigration Appeals or the Attorney General, is that the Board of Immigration Appeals reconsider its earlier decisions.

IN RE MIGUEL GADDA, 23 IN Dec. 645 (BIA 2003) , 23 IN Dec. 645 (2003)

(1) An attorney who practices immigration law in proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of number of years, expulsion from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security is an He relies on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Noriega-Lopezv.

IN THE MATTER OF F----, 2 IN Dec. 709 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 709 (1946)

A-6223750 (56196/433).Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected a theory that the alien's entry into the United States was not madePage 710 until the parole BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated September 12, 1946, are hereby approved.Page 712

IN THE MATTER OF L----, 2 IN Dec. 789 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 789 (1947)

will be forwarded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for its consideration. In accordance with the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals, this case is forwarded for consideration. Therefore, the conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals in this case is approved.

IN THE MATTER OF C----, 4 IN Dec. 130 (BIA 1951) , 4 IN Dec. 130 (1951)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has heard oral argument, at Mr. Service and by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The petition of the alien is hereby denied and the order and decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dated September 26, 1950, are hereby approved

MATTER OF ZORILLA-VIDAL, 24 IN Dec. 768 (BIA 3-20-2009) , 24 IN Dec. 768 (2009)

Outside the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a conviction for criminal solicitation under a State's general purpose on the question in the absence of contrary precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this proceeding . immigration judges in the administration of the immigration laws of the United States.").

MATTER OF V-K-, 24 IN Dec. 500 (BIA 2008) , 24 IN Dec. 500 (2008)

The Board of Immigration Appeals reviews de novo an Immigration Judge's prediction or finding regarding the likelihood that an alien will be tortured, The respondent appealed our decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises. removed from the United States.

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 1 IN Dec. 232 (BIA 1942) , 1 IN Dec. 232 (1942)

Readmission of a legally resident alien who has temporarily departed from the United States without an immigration visa is authorized under section 13 He was rejected by a board of special inquiry on the grounds above stated. From this action he appeals. He was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence upon presentation of an immigration visa on November 29, 1924.

IN THE MATTER OF SOLIS-DAVILA, 13 IN Dec. 694 (BIA 1971) , 13 IN Dec. 694 (1971)

A-10816558Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. The following month, respondent filed a petition for review of that order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. officer of the United States and were not lawfully entitled to enter and to reside within the United States, in violation of Title 8, United States Code

IN THE MATTER OF WALDEI, 19 IN Dec. 189 (BIA 1984) , 19 IN Dec. 189 (1984)

A-24064678.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board October 30, 1984. and stowaways, declines to follow the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Yiu Sing Chun v. We are aware that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Yiu Sing Chun v.

IN THE MATTER OF G---- M----, 2 IN Dec. 861 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 861 (1947)

A-6605457.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa. Executive Order No. 8766 — No passport. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 90.3 the case is referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration.

IN THE MATTER OF K----, 3 IN Dec. 613 (BIA 1949) , 3 IN Dec. 613 (1949)

A-7111777 (mother).A-7111778 (son)Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. One such exception is the case of an alien minor child (not born in the United States), accompanying his alien parents (not born in the United States). in the United States, accompanied by both alien parents not born in the United States, shall be determined by the country of birth of the father if the

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 1 IN Dec. 8 (BIA 1940) , 1 IN Dec. 8 (1940)

It is the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that readmission under this provision of law should be authorized for the reasons hereinafter stated likewise the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the case merits a favorable action. Even if we do not go behind the record of conviction, it is the conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the appellant's admission under the

IN THE MATTER OF PATEL, 20 IN Dec. 368 (BIA 1991) , 20 IN Dec. 368 (1991)

" (4) The Board of Immigration Appeals has formulated a more precise definition of "entry" which requires (1) a crossing into the territorial limits of The applicant appealed from the immigration judge's decision and requested oral argument before the Board of Immigration Appeals. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the SecondPage 370 Circuit found that an alien who had been inspected and admitted by an immigration

IN THE MATTER OF D----, 1 IN Dec. 259 (BIA 1942) , 1 IN Dec. 259 (1942)

who entered the United States on or after September 1, 1939, excepting only the cases of such seamen who have in the United States family ties consisting BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, directing the release of the above-named alien on bond in the sum of that he is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of 1924 in that at the time of entry he was an immigrant not in possession of an immigration

IN THE MATTER OF C---- G----, 1 IN Dec. 70 (BIA 1941) , 1 IN Dec. 70 (1941)

A board of special inquiry excluded him on the grounds stated above. From this action he appeals. 2) of the Immigration Act of 1924, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that he does not possess a visitor's visa; ( 3) That under section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that he admits the commission

IN THE MATTER OF V----, 6 IN Dec. 1 (BIA 1954) , 6 IN Dec. 1 (1954)

Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that respondents on that date were citizens of the United States by operation Both the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice and the Board of Immigration Appeals have adhered to this construction at Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.

IN THE MATTER OF J----, 2 IN Dec. 892 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 892 (1947)

BEFORE THE BOARD BEFORE THE BOARD Discussion: The alien, a native and citizen of Liberia, West Africa, last entered the United States at the port In a recent case before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the second circuit concerning petitions for naturalization (Petition of Rudder et BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals suspending the deportation of the

IN THE MATTER OF ANSELMO, 20 IN Dec. 25 (BIA 1989) , 20 IN Dec. 25 (1989)

This matter arises as a result of deportation proceedings held within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but We are not required to accept an adverse determination by one circuit court of appeals as binding throughout the United States. State of Ga. the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IN THE MATTER OF OKOH, 20 IN Dec. 864 (BIA 1994) , 20 IN Dec. 864 (1994)

A-28333422Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board August 29, 1994. The Board of Immigration Appeals has no jurisdiction over an alien's motion to reconsider its prior decision in exclusion proceedings after the order is the United States after the issuance of the order."

IN THE MATTER OF CHING, 15 IN Dec. 772 (BIA 1976) , 15 IN Dec. 772 (1976)

appellate jurisdiction in such a question from the Board of Immigration Appeals We note that counsel hasPage 773 filed a Petition for Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this matter. On December 16, 1975, counsel filed a Motion to Abate in the United States Court of Appeals.

IN THE MATTER OF H----, 4 IN Dec. 290 (BIA 1951) , 4 IN Dec. 290 (1951)

and under complete control of an agency of the United States, is not held excludable under the provisions of section 17 of the Immigration Act of 1924 Because the position of the Department of State on the problem is contrary to that of the Service (and the Board of Immigration Appeals) the Service has BEFORE THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL (August 17, 1951) The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated March 6, 1951, are hereby approved.Page

IN THE MATTER OF FEDE, 20 IN Dec. 35 (BIA 1989) , 20 IN Dec. 35 (1989)

(1) A regulation promulgated by the Attorney General has the force and effect of law as to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals. held within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit but solely concerns the applicant's application for attorney The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held en banc that the EAJA does apply to deportation hearings before the immigration judges

IN THE MATTER OF M----, 4 IN Dec. 82 (BIA 1950) , 4 IN Dec. 82 (1950)

Both the Central Office and the Board of Immigration Appeals agree that the record relates to an alien who was deported from the United States when he The order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is contrary to that well settled rule. The matter was brought before the Attorney General where the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals was affirmed.

IN THE MATTER OF S.S. "RENVOYLE", 2 IN Dec. 1 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 1 (1944)

On January 7, 1944, the Board of Immigration Appeals considered this case, concluded that liability had been incurred, and imposed a fine in the amount Upon reconsideration of the petition the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered, on May 4, 1944, that its previous decision be affirmed. by both a United States immigration officer and the master of the vessel.

IN THE MATTER OF LOK, 18 IN Dec. 101 (BIA 1981) , 18 IN Dec. 101 (1981)

United States must be lawful within the meaning of this country's immigration laws of Remand entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 18, 1980. , (2) when the immigration judge's order becomes administratively final, (3) when a United States Court of Appeals acts upon a petition for review of the

IN THE MATTER OF J----, 2 IN Dec. 545 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 545 (1947)

(May 10, 1946) BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE (May 10, 1946) Discussion: On June 16, 1944, the Board of Immigration Appeals directed that action be In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 90.3 the case is referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration. For the foregoing reasons the decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals are reversed.Page 553

IN THE MATTER OF BLAS, 15 IN Dec. 626 (BIA 1976) , 15 IN Dec. 626 (1974)

It is more a policy question to which the Board of Immigration Appeals should address itself. There are thirty-one immigration judges throughout the United States and five members of the Board. the Board of Immigration Appeals.

IN THE MATTER OF P----, 2 IN Dec. 712 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 712 (1946)

A-1513280.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. On May 2, 1946, in connection with preexamination proceedings, the subject was heard by a Board of Special Inquiry and found inadmissible into the United This case is submitted to the Board of Immigration Appeals under 8 C.F.R. 90.3 for reference to the Attorney General.

IN THE MATTER OF CHEUNG, 16 IN Dec. 690 (BIA 1979) , 16 IN Dec. 690 (1979)

Immigration and Nationality Act because the United States recognized the Nationalist Government as the legal government of China The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeals on the ground that the immigration judge erred in designating the People's Republic of China as the The Service points out that as late as 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reaffirmed the position reached by the Board in S

IN THE MATTER OF S---- W---- L----, 2 IN Dec. 773 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 773 (1946)

In DEPORTATION Proceedings. 56112/333.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. The Board of Immigration Appeals, on August 18, 1942, found the alien deportable on the charges stated above. By reason of legislation enacted subsequent to the determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals as to the alien's deportability, the lodged charge

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 1 IN Dec. 321 (BIA 1942) , 1 IN Dec. 321 (1942)

We, however, should consider all grounds of inadmissibility irrespective of the action of the board of special inquiry (United States ex rel. Subdivision (b) of section 13 confers discretion to admit aliens without an immigration visa who have been legally admitted to the United States and who United States for permanent residence after an absence of 2 days in Mexico; (5) That the appellant is not in possession of a passport, an immigration

IN THE MATTER OF K----, 2 IN Dec. 858 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 858 (1947)

A-4197506, A-4257898.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. 1940) and inadmissible to the United States as a person ineligible to citizenship (sec. 13 (c) and sec. 28 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 90.3 the case is referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration.

IN THE MATTER OF RAHMAN, 16 IN Dec. 579 (BIA 1978) , 16 IN Dec. 579 (1978)

Department of Justice Decided by Board August 4, 1978 A lawful permanent resident who was excludable under section 212(a)(22) of the Immigration and outside of the United States to evade military service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed our decision in an unpublished opinion, and the respondent appealed to the United States

IN THE MATTER OF T----, 6 IN Dec. 136 (BIA 1954) , 6 IN Dec. 136 (1954)

A-3732346.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. in the United States. The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated May 5, 1954, are hereby approved.Page 140

IN THE MATTER OF N----, 6 IN Dec. 557 (BIA 1955) , 6 IN Dec. 557 (1955)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has now entered an order reversing the order of the special inquiry officer and terminating the deportation proceedings of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 C.F.R., section 6.1 (h) (1) (iii). The Board of Immigration Appeals ordered the proceeding terminated on the ground that section 241 (a) (11), which provides for the deportation of aliens

IN THE MATTER OF S---- L----, 3 IN Dec. 396 (BIA 1949) , 3 IN Dec. 396 (1948)

On April 22, 1948, a motion to stay deportation was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals. court, it is felt that a stay of deportation should be granted pending reconsideration of its views by the Board of Immigration Appeals. to the Board of Immigration Appeals for final decision.

Opinion

IN THE MATTER OF SAN, 15 IN Dec. 315 (BIA 1975) , 15 IN Dec. 315 (1975)

The decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals as they have been rendered with respect to nationals of the United States and particularly with respect of the question that I certify this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals for final decision.

IN THE MATTER OF E----, 1 IN Dec. 40 (BIA 1941) , 1 IN Dec. 40 (1941)

After consideration of this appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered that the son be regarded as an alien. It is the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the child is not a citizen of the United States. This is an instance of disagreement between the Consular Service of the Department of State and the Board of Immigration Appeals to which the Attorney

IN THE MATTER OF K---- H---- C----, 6 IN Dec. 295 (BIA 1954) , 6 IN Dec. 295 (1954)

Appeal — Jurisdiction of Board of Immigration Appeals — Denial of bail to excluded alien-8 C.F.R. 6.1 (b) (7), 242.2, and 212.9. Board of Immigration Appeals to review the determination of an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service denying bail to an alien who has of Immigration Appeals from the denial of administrative bail.

IN RE KWUN YU MA, 22 IN Dec. 67 (BIA 1998) , 22 IN Dec. 67 (1998)

Department of Justice Decided May 28, 1998 In considering the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Young v. The petitioner first filed an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the district court's jurisdictional finding, concluding that "[t]he agency

IN THE MATTER OF A----, 5 IN Dec. 144 (BIA 1953) , 5 IN Dec. 144 (1953)

the United States — American Samoa — section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A person born in American Samoa in 1926 is a national of the United States under section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, such provision The Board of Immigration Appeals has directed that this case be certified to that Board and the final order will be entered in this case by the Board.

IN THE MATTER OF LOK, 16 IN Dec. 441 (BIA 1978) , 16 IN Dec. 441 (1978)

(2) When United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that a respondent is statutorily The respondent appealed our decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In a decision issued on January 4, 1977, Lok v. INS,548 F.2d 37 (2 Cir. 1977), the United States Court of Appeals granted the respondent's petition for review and remanded the case toPage 442 this Board

IN THE MATTER OF S.S. FRED HERRLING, 3 IN Dec. 753 (BIA 1950) , 3 IN Dec. 753 (1949)

The Central Office affirmed the excluding order of the Board of Special Inquiry and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. The responsible party appealed from the order of this Service and on October 7, 1949, the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the appeal and terminated In any event the Board of Immigration Appeals and the courts have not followed the reasoning of the court in that case.

IN THE MATTER OF M----, 4 IN Dec. 189 (BIA 1951) , 4 IN Dec. 189 (1951)

EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa. The sole question to be determined at this time is the applicability to the instant case of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter In that case the Board of Immigration Appeals stated: It is our conclusion, therefore, that as a matter of law a reentry permit secured without fraud

IN RE OLIVARES-MARTINEZ, 23 IN Dec. 148 (BIA 2001) , 23 IN Dec. 148 (2001)

§ 16(b) (1994) for purposes of removability in cases arising in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; accordingly, in cases arising The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the Board's reasoning inCamacho-Marroquin v. the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

IN RE HERRERA, 23 IN Dec. 43 (BIA 2001) , 23 IN Dec. 43 (2001)

to reopen and reconsider, is granted in light of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United Statesv. United States. The request for a stay will be granted.Page 44 Since we issued our decision in the respondent's case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

IN RE M-D, 24 IN Dec. 138 (BIA 2007) , 24 IN Dec. 138 (2007)

(2) Although an Immigration Judge may not reconsider the prior decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals when a case is remanded for background checks any form of immigration relief in immigration proceedings would permit the alien to reside in the United States. [fn2] Although not binding in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over this case, a Third Circuit decision

IN RE KRIVONOS, 24 IN Dec. 292 (BIA 2007) , 24 IN Dec. 292 (2007)

A motion for reinstatement to practice filed by an attorney who was expelled from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts HURWITZ, Acting Vice Chairman: The respondent, who has been expelled from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, to practice law in the State of New York and before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

IN THE MATTER OF SWEED, 10 IN Dec. 688 (BIA 1964) , 10 IN Dec. 688 (1964)

The Board of Immigration Appeals on May 31, 1963 dismissed the respondent's appeal from the special inquiry officer's order. Thereafter, in October of 1963 the respondent moved the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the proceedings to permit further application for relief The Board of Immigration Appeals on November 14, 1963 ordered the hearing reopened for the consideration of such applications for discretionary relief

IN THE MATTER OF S---- H---- C---- C----, 4 IN Dec. 36 (BIA 1950) , 4 IN Dec. 36 (1950)

the 1924 act as interpreted by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, except as may be modified or overruled by the Board of Immigration Appeals or the Attorney General, is that the Board of Immigration Appeals reconsider its earlier decisions.

IN RE MIGUEL GADDA, 23 IN Dec. 645 (BIA 2003) , 23 IN Dec. 645 (2003)

(1) An attorney who practices immigration law in proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of number of years, expulsion from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security is an He relies on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Noriega-Lopezv.

IN THE MATTER OF F----, 2 IN Dec. 709 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 709 (1946)

A-6223750 (56196/433).Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected a theory that the alien's entry into the United States was not madePage 710 until the parole BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated September 12, 1946, are hereby approved.Page 712

IN THE MATTER OF L----, 2 IN Dec. 789 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 789 (1947)

will be forwarded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for its consideration. In accordance with the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals, this case is forwarded for consideration. Therefore, the conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals in this case is approved.

IN THE MATTER OF C----, 4 IN Dec. 130 (BIA 1951) , 4 IN Dec. 130 (1951)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has heard oral argument, at Mr. Service and by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The petition of the alien is hereby denied and the order and decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dated September 26, 1950, are hereby approved

MATTER OF ZORILLA-VIDAL, 24 IN Dec. 768 (BIA 3-20-2009) , 24 IN Dec. 768 (2009)

Outside the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a conviction for criminal solicitation under a State's general purpose on the question in the absence of contrary precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this proceeding . immigration judges in the administration of the immigration laws of the United States.").

MATTER OF V-K-, 24 IN Dec. 500 (BIA 2008) , 24 IN Dec. 500 (2008)

The Board of Immigration Appeals reviews de novo an Immigration Judge's prediction or finding regarding the likelihood that an alien will be tortured, The respondent appealed our decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises. removed from the United States.

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 1 IN Dec. 232 (BIA 1942) , 1 IN Dec. 232 (1942)

Readmission of a legally resident alien who has temporarily departed from the United States without an immigration visa is authorized under section 13 He was rejected by a board of special inquiry on the grounds above stated. From this action he appeals. He was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence upon presentation of an immigration visa on November 29, 1924.

IN THE MATTER OF SOLIS-DAVILA, 13 IN Dec. 694 (BIA 1971) , 13 IN Dec. 694 (1971)

A-10816558Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. The following month, respondent filed a petition for review of that order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. officer of the United States and were not lawfully entitled to enter and to reside within the United States, in violation of Title 8, United States Code

IN THE MATTER OF WALDEI, 19 IN Dec. 189 (BIA 1984) , 19 IN Dec. 189 (1984)

A-24064678.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board October 30, 1984. and stowaways, declines to follow the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Yiu Sing Chun v. We are aware that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Yiu Sing Chun v.

IN THE MATTER OF G---- M----, 2 IN Dec. 861 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 861 (1947)

A-6605457.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa. Executive Order No. 8766 — No passport. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 90.3 the case is referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration.

IN THE MATTER OF K----, 3 IN Dec. 613 (BIA 1949) , 3 IN Dec. 613 (1949)

A-7111777 (mother).A-7111778 (son)Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. One such exception is the case of an alien minor child (not born in the United States), accompanying his alien parents (not born in the United States). in the United States, accompanied by both alien parents not born in the United States, shall be determined by the country of birth of the father if the

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 1 IN Dec. 8 (BIA 1940) , 1 IN Dec. 8 (1940)

It is the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that readmission under this provision of law should be authorized for the reasons hereinafter stated likewise the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the case merits a favorable action. Even if we do not go behind the record of conviction, it is the conclusion of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the appellant's admission under the

IN THE MATTER OF PATEL, 20 IN Dec. 368 (BIA 1991) , 20 IN Dec. 368 (1991)

" (4) The Board of Immigration Appeals has formulated a more precise definition of "entry" which requires (1) a crossing into the territorial limits of The applicant appealed from the immigration judge's decision and requested oral argument before the Board of Immigration Appeals. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the SecondPage 370 Circuit found that an alien who had been inspected and admitted by an immigration

IN THE MATTER OF D----, 1 IN Dec. 259 (BIA 1942) , 1 IN Dec. 259 (1942)

who entered the United States on or after September 1, 1939, excepting only the cases of such seamen who have in the United States family ties consisting BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, directing the release of the above-named alien on bond in the sum of that he is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of 1924 in that at the time of entry he was an immigrant not in possession of an immigration

IN THE MATTER OF C---- G----, 1 IN Dec. 70 (BIA 1941) , 1 IN Dec. 70 (1941)

A board of special inquiry excluded him on the grounds stated above. From this action he appeals. 2) of the Immigration Act of 1924, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that he does not possess a visitor's visa; ( 3) That under section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that he admits the commission

IN THE MATTER OF V----, 6 IN Dec. 1 (BIA 1954) , 6 IN Dec. 1 (1954)

Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that respondents on that date were citizens of the United States by operation Both the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice and the Board of Immigration Appeals have adhered to this construction at Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.

IN THE MATTER OF J----, 2 IN Dec. 892 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 892 (1947)

BEFORE THE BOARD BEFORE THE BOARD Discussion: The alien, a native and citizen of Liberia, West Africa, last entered the United States at the port In a recent case before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the second circuit concerning petitions for naturalization (Petition of Rudder et BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals suspending the deportation of the

IN THE MATTER OF ANSELMO, 20 IN Dec. 25 (BIA 1989) , 20 IN Dec. 25 (1989)

This matter arises as a result of deportation proceedings held within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but We are not required to accept an adverse determination by one circuit court of appeals as binding throughout the United States. State of Ga. the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IN THE MATTER OF OKOH, 20 IN Dec. 864 (BIA 1994) , 20 IN Dec. 864 (1994)

A-28333422Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board August 29, 1994. The Board of Immigration Appeals has no jurisdiction over an alien's motion to reconsider its prior decision in exclusion proceedings after the order is the United States after the issuance of the order."

IN THE MATTER OF CHING, 15 IN Dec. 772 (BIA 1976) , 15 IN Dec. 772 (1976)

appellate jurisdiction in such a question from the Board of Immigration Appeals We note that counsel hasPage 773 filed a Petition for Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this matter. On December 16, 1975, counsel filed a Motion to Abate in the United States Court of Appeals.

IN THE MATTER OF H----, 4 IN Dec. 290 (BIA 1951) , 4 IN Dec. 290 (1951)

and under complete control of an agency of the United States, is not held excludable under the provisions of section 17 of the Immigration Act of 1924 Because the position of the Department of State on the problem is contrary to that of the Service (and the Board of Immigration Appeals) the Service has BEFORE THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL (August 17, 1951) The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated March 6, 1951, are hereby approved.Page

IN THE MATTER OF FEDE, 20 IN Dec. 35 (BIA 1989) , 20 IN Dec. 35 (1989)

(1) A regulation promulgated by the Attorney General has the force and effect of law as to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals. held within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit but solely concerns the applicant's application for attorney The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held en banc that the EAJA does apply to deportation hearings before the immigration judges

IN THE MATTER OF M----, 4 IN Dec. 82 (BIA 1950) , 4 IN Dec. 82 (1950)

Both the Central Office and the Board of Immigration Appeals agree that the record relates to an alien who was deported from the United States when he The order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is contrary to that well settled rule. The matter was brought before the Attorney General where the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals was affirmed.

IN THE MATTER OF S.S. "RENVOYLE", 2 IN Dec. 1 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 1 (1944)

On January 7, 1944, the Board of Immigration Appeals considered this case, concluded that liability had been incurred, and imposed a fine in the amount Upon reconsideration of the petition the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered, on May 4, 1944, that its previous decision be affirmed. by both a United States immigration officer and the master of the vessel.

IN THE MATTER OF LOK, 18 IN Dec. 101 (BIA 1981) , 18 IN Dec. 101 (1981)

United States must be lawful within the meaning of this country's immigration laws of Remand entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 18, 1980. , (2) when the immigration judge's order becomes administratively final, (3) when a United States Court of Appeals acts upon a petition for review of the

IN THE MATTER OF J----, 2 IN Dec. 545 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 545 (1947)

(May 10, 1946) BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE (May 10, 1946) Discussion: On June 16, 1944, the Board of Immigration Appeals directed that action be In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 90.3 the case is referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration. For the foregoing reasons the decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals are reversed.Page 553

IN THE MATTER OF BLAS, 15 IN Dec. 626 (BIA 1976) , 15 IN Dec. 626 (1974)

It is more a policy question to which the Board of Immigration Appeals should address itself. There are thirty-one immigration judges throughout the United States and five members of the Board. the Board of Immigration Appeals.

IN THE MATTER OF P----, 2 IN Dec. 712 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 712 (1946)

A-1513280.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. On May 2, 1946, in connection with preexamination proceedings, the subject was heard by a Board of Special Inquiry and found inadmissible into the United This case is submitted to the Board of Immigration Appeals under 8 C.F.R. 90.3 for reference to the Attorney General.

IN THE MATTER OF CHEUNG, 16 IN Dec. 690 (BIA 1979) , 16 IN Dec. 690 (1979)

Immigration and Nationality Act because the United States recognized the Nationalist Government as the legal government of China The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeals on the ground that the immigration judge erred in designating the People's Republic of China as the The Service points out that as late as 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reaffirmed the position reached by the Board in S

IN THE MATTER OF S---- W---- L----, 2 IN Dec. 773 (BIA 1946) , 2 IN Dec. 773 (1946)

In DEPORTATION Proceedings. 56112/333.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. The Board of Immigration Appeals, on August 18, 1942, found the alien deportable on the charges stated above. By reason of legislation enacted subsequent to the determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals as to the alien's deportability, the lodged charge

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 1 IN Dec. 321 (BIA 1942) , 1 IN Dec. 321 (1942)

We, however, should consider all grounds of inadmissibility irrespective of the action of the board of special inquiry (United States ex rel. Subdivision (b) of section 13 confers discretion to admit aliens without an immigration visa who have been legally admitted to the United States and who United States for permanent residence after an absence of 2 days in Mexico; (5) That the appellant is not in possession of a passport, an immigration

IN THE MATTER OF K----, 2 IN Dec. 858 (BIA 1947) , 2 IN Dec. 858 (1947)

A-4197506, A-4257898.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. 1940) and inadmissible to the United States as a person ineligible to citizenship (sec. 13 (c) and sec. 28 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 90.3 the case is referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration.

IN THE MATTER OF RAHMAN, 16 IN Dec. 579 (BIA 1978) , 16 IN Dec. 579 (1978)

Department of Justice Decided by Board August 4, 1978 A lawful permanent resident who was excludable under section 212(a)(22) of the Immigration and outside of the United States to evade military service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed our decision in an unpublished opinion, and the respondent appealed to the United States

IN THE MATTER OF T----, 6 IN Dec. 136 (BIA 1954) , 6 IN Dec. 136 (1954)

A-3732346.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. in the United States. The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated May 5, 1954, are hereby approved.Page 140

IN THE MATTER OF N----, 6 IN Dec. 557 (BIA 1955) , 6 IN Dec. 557 (1955)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has now entered an order reversing the order of the special inquiry officer and terminating the deportation proceedings of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 C.F.R., section 6.1 (h) (1) (iii). The Board of Immigration Appeals ordered the proceeding terminated on the ground that section 241 (a) (11), which provides for the deportation of aliens

IN THE MATTER OF S---- L----, 3 IN Dec. 396 (BIA 1949) , 3 IN Dec. 396 (1948)

On April 22, 1948, a motion to stay deportation was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals. court, it is felt that a stay of deportation should be granted pending reconsideration of its views by the Board of Immigration Appeals. to the Board of Immigration Appeals for final decision.