8 C.F.R. § 100.2
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Kaufman v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Kaufman v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (1994). In 2002 however, Congress abolished the INS when it enacted the Homeland Security Act, 6 U.”
Equal Access Educ. v. Merten, 305 F. Supp. 2d 585 (E.D. Va. 2004). “§ 1252 (b) and 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (c)(2). These federal laws and regulations, however, do not support plaintiffs’ contention.”
City of El Centro v. The United States, 922 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “There can be little question but that these are costs incurred as a natural and foreseeable consequence of the conduct by the United States Government in fulfilling its Constitutional duties.”
United States v. Alfredo Equihua-Juarez, AKA Jorge Perez-Magana, Martin Ramirez-Estrada, 851 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988). “However, regulations describing the organization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service note that the Border Patrol Division is one of five units under the Office of Enforcement, 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (10)(i). The Border Patrol sectors and their chief patrol agents "are…”
Abdelwahab v. Frazier, 578 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2009). “” 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (d)(2)(h) (2004). 8 Because the power to approve or revoke I-140 petitions had not been “exclusively delegated to another immigration official or class of immigration officer,” id.”
United States v. Juv. Female, 566 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2009). “, 8 C.F.R. §§ 100.2 , 100.4, 103.1, 235.1, 239.”
Dori Zardui-Quintana v. Louis M. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213 (11th Cir. 1985). “” 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (e) (1985). . The relevant portions of these provisions are set out infra notes 16-17.”
United States v. Pollard, 209 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D.V.I. 2002). “See 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (3) (setting forth the organization and functions of the various divisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service).”
Hamandi v. Chertoff, 550 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008). “Prior to 2002, however, the Attorney General delegated his authority under the INA to the INS, 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 , and in that year, Congress abolished the INS and reassigned its duties with regard to the adjudication of naturalization applications to USCIS.”
Clive Charles Thomas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994). “*1339 Our dissenting colleague infers from the absence of any express delegation that United States Attorneys have- no authority.”
United States v. Quintana, 623 F.3d 1237 (8th Cir. 2010). “See 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (d)(2)(B)(iii). Suspecting drug trafficking, Messer also summoned Trooper Shawn Skogen and his drug dog, who arrived at 2:53 p.”
Carmelo Hernandez v. Lee G. Cremer, Etc., U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., & U.S. Dep't of Just., 913 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1990). “8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (a) provides that the “Attorney General has delegated to the [INS] Commissioner .”
— 8 C.F.R. § 100.2(a) — 1 case
— 8 C.F.R. § 100.2(f) — 1 case
United States v. Alfredo Equihua-Juarez, AKA Jorge Perez-Magana, Martin Ramirez-Estrada, 851 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988). “However, regulations describing the organization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service note that the Border Patrol Division is one of five units under the Office of Enforcement, 8 C.F.R. § 100.2 (10)(i). The Border Patrol sectors and their chief patrol agents "are…”
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.