28 C.F.R. § 24.103

Proceedings covered

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) These rules apply to adversary adjudications required by statute to be conducted by the Department under 5 U.S.C. 554. Specifically, the proceedings conducted by the Department to which these rules apply are:

(1) Hearings conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in connection with suspension or revocation of registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 824(c) and 21 CFR 1301.51; suspension or revocation of import and export registrations pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958 and 21 CFR 1311.51;

(2) Hearings conducted by DEA in connection with the scheduling of drugs pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 CFR 1308.41;

(3) Handicap discrimination hearings conducted by the Department under 29 U.S.C. 794a(a) and 28 CFR 42.109(d);

(4) Title VI civil rights hearings conducted by the Department under 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 and 28 CFR 42.109(d);

(5) Grant denial and grant termination hearings conducted by the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics (OJARS), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) under 42 U.S.C. 3783 and 28 CFR part 18; and

(6) Civil rights hearings conducted by OJARS under 42 U.S.C. 3789d and 28 CFR 42.214-15.

(b) If a proceeding includes both matters covered by the Act and matters specifically excluded from coverage, any award made will include only fees and expenses related to covered issues.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1989–1991 · leading case: Rafeh-Rafie Ardestani v. United States Dep't of Just., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rafeh-Rafie Ardestani v. United States Dep't of Just., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 10× “Disagreeing that deportation proceedings are encompassed by EAJA, the Board reasoned that the binding regulations of the United States Attorney General in 28 C.F.R. section 24.103, providing that deportation proceedings are not within the scope of EAJA, presented "a more…”

Ardestani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 502 U.S. 129 (1991). · cites it 2× “" The INS appealed the award of fees to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board vacated and denied the *132 award on the ground that the Attorney General has determined that deportation proceedings are not within the scope of the EAJA.”

Earle Clarke v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 172 (3rd Cir. 1990). · cites it 5× “10, 1989 decision denying this application, the immigration judge found that Clarke met the basic requirements for an EAJA award, but concluded that the BIA’s holdings in Matter of Anselmo, Interim Decision 3105 (BIA 1989), and Matter of Fede, Interim Decision 3106 (BIA 1989), 2…”

Fede, 20 I. & N. Dec. 35 (BIA 1989). · cites it 2× “2 Neither this Board nor an immigration judge has authority to consider a challenge to the Attorney General's determination in this regard.”

Ana Lucia Hodge v. United States Dep't of Just., 929 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1991). “28 C.F.R. § 24.103 . . We also do not agree with the Owens court that "the ACUS rules .”

— 28 C.F.R. § 24.103(b) — 1 case

Rafeh-Rafie Ardestani v. United States Dep't of Just., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1990). “Disagreeing that deportation proceedings are encompassed by EAJA, the Board reasoned that the binding regulations of the United States Attorney General in 28 C.F.R. section 24.103, providing that deportation proceedings are not within the scope of EAJA, presented "a more…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.