The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 1003.25(b) because the IJ had not determined whether Reyes Nunez's waiver of rights was voluntary . . . As a general matter, § 1003.25(b) regulates stipulated requests for removal and allows an IJ to enter . . . The IJ's failure to determine the validity of Reyes Nunez's waiver violated § 1003.25(b). . . . Section 1003.25(b) is one such regulation; it requires an IJ to safeguard the fundamental right of due . . . Ohio Mar. 18, 2014) ("Nowhere does § 1003.25(b) state that the immigration judge is required to hold . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b) (2016). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . . in the Stipulated Form of Removal was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . to expressly find that her waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . Section 1003.25(b) provides that an IJ “may enter [a removal] order without a hearing and in the absence . . . for an IJ to follow the regulation, which directs him to make the finding regarding voluntariness. § 1003.25 . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). The Stipulation was printed in both English and Spanish. . . . as the IJ “determine[s] that the alien’s waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). Against such backdrop, the court has closely reviewed- the waiver in this case. . . . Immigration Judge must determine that the alien’s waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. 8 C.F.K § 1003.25 . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b), which states: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation, exclusion or removal . . . But 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) contains no requirement that an alien must be represented by counsel or that . . . The statute is now 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). . Even if we were to do so, it would not assist Baptist. . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b) by finding Gomez’s waiver of rights “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” on the basis . . . Second, the IJ who ordered Gomez removed violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding that Gomez’s waiver . . . Here, we conclude that the procedures followed in removing Gomez violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) because . . . The government's argument — that the stipulated removal process set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) is . . . (b). . 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) provides in full: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c) (“An Immigration Judge may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b) (“If the alien is unrepresented, the Immigration Judge must determine that the alien’s . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b) by finding Gomez’s waiver of rights “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” on the basis . . . Second, the IJ who ordered Gomez removed violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding that Gomez’s waiver . . . Here, we conclude that the procedures followed in removing Gomez violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) because . . . The government's argument' — that the stipulated removal process set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) is . . . (b). . 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) provides in full: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). And this is not unique to immigration cases. . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c), permit an Immigration Judge to “conduct hearings through video conference to the same . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c) (“An Immigration Judge may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . . . § 1003.25. . . . Like the former version of the regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 provides an IJ with discretion to “enter . . . See also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.25(b)(1), (2), (6), (7). . . . Neither 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d) nor 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 requires a waiver of the Fifth Amendment right to . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25 (The IJ “may, for good cause, ... waive the presence of the alien at a hearing when the alien . . . material to the questions whether the IJ would have excused Qamar’s presence for “good cause” under § 1003.25 . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). The BIA rejected the other arguments that Ligoussou was deprived of a fair hearing. . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b), provides, in part, as follows: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation . . . The defendant thereafter executed a stipulation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). . . . of his eligibility to apply for voluntary departure before he signed a stipulation under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). . . . the Stipulated Request and the order of removal did not comport with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(e) is facially unconstitutional. . . . Accordingly, this court should declare that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(c) is unconstitutional because it infringes . . . Section 1003.25(c) provides: Telephonic or video hearings. . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c), violates his constitutional due process rights. No court has ever so held, however. . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(a). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .
. . . . § 1003.25. Her argument is unavailing. . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(c), because petitioner failed to raise the claim before the BIA, and thus failed to exhaust . . .
. . . . § 1003.25, that the IJ erred in permitting a witness, Akinwande’s second ex-wife, to testify via telephone . . . can tell, this is the first case to address this argument involving the interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . out the testimony of his ex-wife on the ground that both due process and INS regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . Akinwande’s initial argument is that the use of the telephone testimony violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25, . . .
. . . . § 1003.25(a), (c)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(ii), (iv). Although Mr. . . .
. . . On February 1, 1983, this account showed a balance of $1003.25. . . . $689.16 at Coast Federal Savings and another account in the name of Motion Critique with a balance of $1003.25 . . .