Dada v. Mukasey

The court held that an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals denying deferral of removal in a withholding only proceeding is not a final order of removal.

The Court held that voluntary departure deadlines that end on a weekend or public holiday are automatically extended to the following business day for the purposes of filing a post-decision motion to reopen or reconsider immigration removal proceedings.

The Court considered whether the government satisfied its notice obligations when it gave an initial notice to appear without a date and location and a later notice with them, and ruled for the government that the notice was sufficient to justify removal.· AI-written

The court held that noncitizens are not required to exhaust all possible discretionary appeals offered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) before contesting removal orders in federal courts.

In a suit by Texas and Missouri over the termination of the "Remain in Mexico" policy, the Court reversed the lower courts and ruled that the Biden administration and DHS legally had the authority to end the program.· AI-written

The Court held that Section 1231(a)(6) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not require bond hearings, with the government bearing the burden by clear and convincing evidence, for noncitizens detained for six months.· AI-written

The Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying judgments related to discretionary relief in immigration proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2).

The court held that non-citizens subject to reinstated deportation orders are not entitled to bond hearings while seeking to prevent the deportation; their removal orders are "administratively final."

The Court ruled that a non-citizen seeking cancellation of a removal order did not meet the burden of proving eligibility unless they showed a past conviction was not disqualifying, even when the record was ambiguous under a divisible state statute.· AI-written

The Court ruled that the 1996 immigration law limiting habeas corpus judicial review of immigration officers' decisions did not violate the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution.· AI-written

The Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

The Court ruled on the question of what appeals courts can review when determining whether a noncitizen who has committed a crime in the United States can be deported.

The court held that The statutory phrase "questions of law" includes the application of a legal standard to facts when those facts are undisputed.

In a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled that the government has the power to detain, at any time, immigrants that have committed certain crimes that could lead to their deportation, even if they were not detained by immigration authorities upon release from criminal custody.

In an immigration case, the Court reversed the lower court, holding that a Notice to Appear that does not tell a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not valid and does not trigger the stop-time rule.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" requires the age of the victim to be less than 16.

The Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on the matter of whether Tunisian national Moones Mellouli should be deported after being convicted for driving under the influence.

The court ruled in a 7–2 decision that "social sharing of a small amount of marijuana" by a legal immigrant does not constitute aggravated felony and so does not require mandatory deportation.

The Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals permissibly construed the statute in requiring a non-citizen seeking cancellation of a deportation order to individually satisfy lawful permanent resident requirements, rather than relying on a parent's years of status.· AI-written

The Court held that "filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the Government's revenue loss exceeds $10,000."

The Court unanimously invalidated the Board of Immigration Appeals' "comparable-grounds rule," used to decide whether certain long-term resident aliens facing deportation over a prior conviction could seek relief, as arbitrary and capricious.· AI-written

The court held that the term "aggravated felonies" in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43) does not mean "any conduct punishable as a felony."

The Court held that the statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the attorney general immune to judicial review does not allow the attorney general to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations.

The court held that, for deportation purposes, fraud is an aggravated felony when the loss to the victims exceeds $10,000, and that refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed fraud on a particular occasion.

The court held that immigrants who are contesting their impending deportation may request stays using the ordinary standards, but they cannot claim that they will be irreparably injured by wrongful deportation.

The Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Fifth Circuit erred in an asylum case by presuming that an applicant's claimed coercion to participate in persecution was immaterial to whether the persecutor bar applies.· AI-written

The court held that the term "theft offense" in the Immigration and Nationality Act includes the crime of "aiding and abetting" a theft offense.

The Court held that an "aggravated felony" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor.

The Court held that the reinstatement provision in §241(a)(5) applied to immigrants who illegally reentered the U.S. before IIRIRA's effective date, and that applying it to a man deported after reentering in 1982 was not impermissibly retroactive.· AI-written

The Court ended the detention of people denied refugee status who were held in prison awaiting deportation even though they could not actually be deported because of a political stalemate with Cuba.· AI-written

The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv) permits a non-citizen to be deported to a country without the advance consent of that country's government.

The Court held that aliens may not be deported after being convicted of DUI if the DUI statute that defines the offense does not contain a mens rea element or otherwise allows a conviction for merely negligent conduct.

The court ruled narrowly that section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. § 1231) contains an implicit time limitation and did not authorize indefinite detention of foreigners that no other country would accept.

In an immigration dispute, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.· AI-written

The court held that an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals denying deferral of removal in a withholding only proceeding is not a final order of removal.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on June 21, 1993.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration and Naturalization Service's regulations regarding the release of alien unaccompanied minors did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that a Guatemalan man seeking asylum in the United States of America as a result of forced conscription in a guerrilla army did not establish persecution on account of political opinion, a legal requirement for asylum.

The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.

The Court decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy.

In a case about an alien seeking to avoid deportation by claiming he would be persecuted in his native land, the Court held that he must show a "clear probability" of persecution there.· AI-written

The Court upheld Clive Michael Boutilier's deportation from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 due to his history of homosexual activities.

The Court held that when respondent George Fleuti, a Swiss national who had lived in the United States as a permanent resident since 1952, had briefly traveled from the United States to Mexico and then returned, he had not engaged in an "entry" within the meaning of the INA.

The Court held that a non-citizen subject to a final order of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 could obtain judicial review by bringing an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court held that administrative agencies in the Federal Government are obliged to follow their own regulations, policies and procedures.

The Court held that the Alien Enemies Act precluded judicial review of executive orders to remove foreign nationals from the United States during wartime.