8 U.S.C. § 1229a
Removal proceedings
An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.
An alien placed in proceedings under this section may be charged with any applicable ground of inadmissibility under section 1182(a) of this title or any applicable ground of deportability under section 1227(a) of this title.
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States. Nothing in this section shall affect proceedings conducted pursuant to section 1228 of this title.
The immigration judge shall administer oaths, receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses. The immigration judge may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and presentation of evidence. The immigration judge shall have authority (under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General) to sanction by civil money penalty any action (or inaction) in contempt of the judge’s proper exercise of authority under this chapter.
An evidentiary hearing on the merits may only be conducted through a telephone conference with the consent of the alien involved after the alien has been advised of the right to proceed in person or through video conference.
If it is impracticable by reason of an alien’s mental incompetency for the alien to be present at the proceeding, the Attorney General shall prescribe safeguards to protect the rights and privileges of the alien.
Any alien who, after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title has been provided to the alien or the alien’s counsel of record, does not attend a proceeding under this section, shall be ordered removed in absentia if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable (as defined in subsection (e)(2)). The written notice by the Attorney General shall be considered sufficient for purposes of this subparagraph if provided at the most recent address provided under section 1229(a)(1)(F) of this title.
No written notice shall be required under subparagraph (A) if the alien has failed to provide the address required under section 1229(a)(1)(F) of this title.
Any petition for review under section 1252 of this title of an order entered in absentia under this paragraph shall (except in cases described in section 1252(b)(5) of this title) be confined to (i) the validity of the notice provided to the alien, (ii) the reasons for the alien’s not attending the proceeding, and (iii) whether or not the alien is removable.
The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all aliens placed in proceedings under this section, including any alien who remains in a contiguous foreign territory pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(C) of this title.
Any alien against whom a final order of removal is entered in absentia under this subsection and who, at the time of the notice described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title, was provided oral notice, either in the alien’s native language or in another language the alien understands, of the time and place of the proceedings and of the consequences under this paragraph of failing, other than because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1)) to attend a proceeding under this section, shall not be eligible for relief under section 1229b, 1229c, 1255, 1258, or 1259 of this title for a period of 10 years after the date of the entry of the final order of removal.
At the conclusion of the proceeding the immigration judge shall decide whether an alien is removable from the United States. The determination of the immigration judge shall be based only on the evidence produced at the hearing.
If a medical officer or civil surgeon or board of medical officers has certified under section 1222(b) of this title that an alien has a disease, illness, or addiction which would make the alien inadmissible under paragraph (1) of section 1182(a) of this title, the decision of the immigration judge shall be based solely upon such certification.
In the proceeding the Service has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
The applicant must comply with the applicable requirements to submit information or documentation in support of the applicant’s application for relief or protection as provided by law or by regulation or in the instructions for the application form. In evaluating the testimony of the applicant or other witness in support of the application, the immigration judge will determine whether or not the testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant has satisfied the applicant’s burden of proof. In determining whether the applicant has met such burden, the immigration judge shall weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the immigration judge determines that the applicant should provide evidence which corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, the immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.
If the immigration judge decides that the alien is removable and orders the alien to be removed, the judge shall inform the alien of the right to appeal that decision and of the consequences for failure to depart under the order of removal, including civil and criminal penalties.
The alien may file one motion to reconsider a decision that the alien is removable from the United States.
The motion must be filed within 30 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.
The motion shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.
An alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings under this section, except that this limitation shall not apply so as to prevent the filing of one motion to reopen described in subparagraph (C)(iv).
The motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.
Except as provided in this subparagraph, the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.
There is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen if the basis of the motion is to apply for relief under sections 1
The filing of a motion to reopen an order entered pursuant to subsection (b)(5) is subject to the deadline specified in subparagraph (C) of such subsection.
The Attorney General shall provide by regulation for the entry by an immigration judge of an order of removal stipulated to by the alien (or the alien’s representative) and the Service. A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien’s removability from the United States.
The term “exceptional circumstances” refers to exceptional circumstances (such as battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent of the alien, serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien.
This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a)(3), (b)(1), (4)(B), and (c)(3)(B), (C), was in the original, “this Act”, meaning act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of this title and Tables.
Section 1254 of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(7)(C)(iv)(I), was repealed by Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 308(b)(7),
A prior section 240 of act
2006—Subsec. (c)(7)(A). Pub. L. 109–162, § 825(a)(1), inserted before period at end “, except that this limitation shall not apply so as to prevent the filing of one motion to reopen described in subparagraph (C)(iv)”.
Subsec. (c)(7)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 109–162, § 825(a)(2)(A), (B), substituted “spouses, children, and parents” for “spouses and children” in heading and “Any limitation under this section on the deadlines for filing such motions shall not apply” for “The deadline specified in subsection (b)(5)(C) of this section for filing a motion to reopen does not apply” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(7)(C)(iv)(I). Pub. L. 109–162, § 825(a)(2)(C), which directed substitution of “, section 1229b(b) of this title, or section 1254(a)(3) of this title (as in effect on
Subsec. (c)(7)(C)(iv)(IV). Pub. L. 109–162, § 825(a)(2)(D)–(F), added subcl. (IV).
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 109–162, § 813(a)(1), substituted “battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent of the alien, serious illness of the alien,” for “serious illness of the alien”.
2005—Subsec. (c)(4) to (7). Pub. L. 109–13 added par. (4) and redesignated former pars. (4) to (6) as (5) to (7), respectively.
2000—Subsec. (c)(6)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 106–386 added cl. (iv).
Pub. L. 109–162, title VIII, § 813(a)(2),
Amendment by Pub. L. 109–13 effective
Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title V, § 1506(c)(1)(B),
Section effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after
Subsec. (c)(3)(B), (C) of this section applicable to proving convictions entered before, on, or after
For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title V, § 1506(c)(2),
For purposes of this chapter, any reference in law to an order of removal is deemed to include a reference to an order of exclusion and deportation or an order of deportation, see section 309(d)(2) of Pub. L. 104–208, set out in an Effective Date of 1996 Amendments note under section 1101 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7,589
cases (1,541 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). “The Board's treatment and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii) under the facts presented is not inconsistent with 8 U.”
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the framework set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in order to carry his burden of proving that his conviction was not for a generic federal drug trafficking offense, Young must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction was for offering to sell cocaine,…”
William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007). “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Yuzi Cui v. Merrick Garland, 13 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). The appeal argued that the prior attorney filed a motion to change venue (which does not appear in the record) due to Cui’s relocation to Tennessee, and that the IJ improperly denied the motion to change venue and issued an order of removal.”
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”
Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008). “8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (providing that a removal order entered in absentia is stayed automatically pending a motion to reopen); and, though the BIA has discretion to deny the motion for a stay, it may constitute an abuse of discretion for the BIA to do so where the motion…”
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010). “A similar provision, enacted as part of IIRIRA, is now contained in 8 U. S. C. §1229a(b)(5)(C) (2006 ed.). As the Government notes, this provision does not apply in this case because petitioner challenges the denial of his second motion to reopen, which the parties agree is gov…”
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
Saidou Dia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 353 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2003). “In recognition of the serious consequences of an erroneous denial of asylum, Congress, in the INA, has given asylum seekers the right to present evidence to an immigra *267 tion judge (“U”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (2002), 1 the right to an administrative appeal of an adverse decision…”
Miguel Arevalo-Quintero v. Merrick Garland, 998 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2021). “8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Based on this statutory requirement, our sister circuits have held that “unlike an Article III judge,” an immigration judge “is not merely the fact finder and adjudicator but also has an obligation to establish the record.”
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(1) — 6 cases
United States v. Juan Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022).
United States v. Juan De La Cruz Morante, 375 F. Supp. 3d 707 (S.D. Tex. 2019).
Patricia Martinez-Manzanarez v. William Barr, U. S (5th Cir. 2020).
Patricia Martinez-Manzanarez v. William Barr, U. S (5th Cir. 2020).
Pardo-Gomez (D.N.M. 2026).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(1)(1) — 2 cases
Matcharashvili (D.N.M. 2026).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(2)(A) — 1 case
Maria Rodriguez-Reyes v. Eric Holder, Jr., 565 F. App'x 310 (5th Cir. 2014).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(2)(A)(iii) — 1 case
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(3) — 5 cases
People v. Guzman, 2014 IL App (3d) 90464 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Rolando M. Sierra, Sr. v. D. Romaine, Warden Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 347 F.3d 559 (3rd Cir. 2003).
People v. Guzman, 2014 IL App (3d) 90464 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
Leon Hugh Gavaskar Mattie v. Attorney Gen. USA, 585 F. App'x 821 (3rd Cir. 2014).
Sierra v. Romaine (3rd Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(3)(1) — 1 case
Daniela Aguiluz Ortiz v. Merrick Garland (6th Cir. 2023).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(4) — 2 cases
Sarbpreet Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr., 551 F. App'x 212 (5th Cir. 2014).
Sarbpreet Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. (5th Cir. 2014).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(4)(A)(I) — 2 cases
Philander Salviejo-Fernandez, AKA Philander Salviejo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 455 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006).
Salviejo-Fernandez v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(4)(C) — 1 case
Penaranda Arevalo v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(5)(A) — 2 cases
Webb v. Weiss, 69 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Conn. 1999).
Sandhu v. Gonzales, 185 F. App'x 4 (1st Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(5)(B) — 2 cases
Carissa Ann Marie Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 284 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2002).
Renaut v. Holder, Jr., 791 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(5)(C) — 3 cases
Webb v. Weiss, 69 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Conn. 1999).
Patel v. Holder, 389 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2010).
Singh v. Mukasey, 296 F. App'x 584 (9th Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(6) — 1 case
Am. Immigr. Council v. Exec. Off. For Immigr. Review (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(6)(C)(i) — 1 case
Fan v. Gonzales, 133 F. App'x 884 (4th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7) — 2 cases
Grigous v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2006).
Saidou Sao v. Eric Holder, Jr., 394 F. App'x 206 (6th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(A) — 5 cases
Yang v. Mukasey, 510 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2007).
Angel Cun-Luc v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 266 (8th Cir. 2016).
Kolodziej v. Attorney Gen., 297 F. App'x 129 (3rd Cir. 2008).
Bounty Lue Yang v. Alberto Gonzales (8th Cir. 2007).
Buenrostro-Lomeli v. Gonzales, 246 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(B) — 1 case
Gao v. Sessions (2d Cir. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(C) — 1 case
Baldi v. Holder, 490 F. App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(C)(i) — 3 cases
Mariano Granados-Oseguera v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 464 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2006).
Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (8th Cir. 2018).
Granados-Osegura v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(B)(5)(A) — 1 case
Bhanot v. Chertoff, 474 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(B)(5)(C)(ii) — 1 case
Martin Torres Hernandez v. Loretta Lynch, 825 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(C)(7)(c)(i) — 1 case
He v. Garland (9th Cir. 2023).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a) — 50 cases
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).
Santiago Alvarez v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 818 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Romeo, 122 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 1997).
Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353 (5th Cir. 2022).
Sammir A. Poveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 692 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1) — 116 cases
Darvin Daniel Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019).
Santiago Alvarez v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 818 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016).
Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019).
Carlos Bastardo-Vale v. Attorney Gen. United States, 934 F.3d 255 (3rd Cir. 2019).
Hisham D. Abu-Khaliel v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney Gen., 436 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1)(G)(ii) — 1 case
Singh v. Holder, 565 F. App'x 14 (2d Cir. 2014).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(2) — 22 cases
Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2001).
Matovski v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2007).
Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney Gen. of the United States Sec'y of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 456 F.3d 88 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004).
David Ibragimov v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 476 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3) — 75 cases
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 726 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2013).
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).
Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008).
Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012).
Jose Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Jefferson Sessions, 882 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Rosendo Valdivias-Soto, 112 F.4th 713 (9th Cir. 2024).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5) — 1 case
Maknojiya v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5)(A) — 1 case
Anyah v. Heston, 74 F. App'x 300 (5th Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5)(C)(ii) — 1 case
Maknojiya v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(7) — 1 case
Williams v. Wolf (W.D. Mich. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(7)(C)(i) — 3 cases
Benbin Zeng vs U.S. Attorney Gen., 414 F. App'x 258 (11th Cir. 2011).
Yan Jin Zao v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 395 F. App'x 606 (11th Cir. 2010).
Memia v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 400 F. App'x 485 (11th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(I) — 1 case
Rasaq Opyemi Sanusi v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(c)(6) — 4 cases
Hafeez v. Holder, 362 F. App'x 202 (2d Cir. 2010).
Yin Ting Lian v. Holder, 361 F. App'x 229 (2d Cir. 2010).
Ukani v. Holder, 337 F. App'x 93 (2d Cir. 2009).
Ukani v. Holder, 337 F. App'x 93 (2d Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(l) — 46 cases
Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008).
Lorenzo v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007).
Hisham D. Abu-Khaliel v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney Gen., 436 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2006).
Charles Osiemo Onyinkwa v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. for the United States of Am., 376 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2004).
Igli Filja, Luljeta Filja, Endrit Filja v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 447 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) — 37 cases
Abtew v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 47 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2014).
Kucana v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2008).
Andrea Patricia Duvall, (Nee Andrea Patricia Phillips) v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 436 F.3d 382 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Mynor Tun-Cos v. B. Perrotte, 922 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2019).
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) — 121 cases
Miguel Arevalo-Quintero v. Merrick Garland, 998 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2021). “8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Based on this statutory requirement, our sister circuits have held that “unlike an Article III judge,” an immigration judge “is not merely the fact finder and adjudicator but also has an obligation to establish the record.”
Victor Angeles Zamorano v. Merrick Garland, 2 F.4th 1213 (9th Cir. 2021).
J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016).
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”
Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1)(A)(iii) — 1 case
Eric Atugah v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 321 F. App'x 431 (6th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1)(C) — 1 case
Gomez Vivanco v. Holder, 381 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1l) — 1 case
Martin Campos-Luna v. Loretta Lynch, 643 F. App'x 540 (6th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2) — 19 cases
Manuel Vilchez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012).
Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998).
Kwok Sze v. Johnson, 172 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D.D.C. 2016).
Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326 (2d Cir. 2022).
Mohamed Bouras v. Eric Holder, Jr., 779 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A) — 7 cases
Omar Gomaa Orabi v. Attorney Gen. United States, 738 F.3d 535 (3rd Cir. 2014).
Angov v. Holder, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Paredes-Batista, 140 F.3d 367 (2d Cir. 1998).
Doe v. Decker (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(ii) — 5 cases
Miguel Angel Ramos v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 414 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2005).
Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003).
Martha Isabel Rosales-Mendez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 104 F.4th 1271 (11th Cir. 2024).
Ramos Ramos, Miguel v. Gonzales, Alberto R. (7th Cir. 2005).
Feng Chai Wang v. United States Dep't of Just., 160 F. App'x 59 (2d Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(iii) — 18 cases
Manuel Vilchez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012).
Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008).
Eke v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2008).
Aslam v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
Nchifor, 28 I. & N. Dec. 585 (BIA 2022).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(iv) — 1 case
Öztürk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382 (2d Cir. 2025).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(B) — 6 cases
Manuel Vilchez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Paredes-Batista, 140 F.3d 367 (2d Cir. 1998).
Li v. Garland (2d Cir. 2021).
Rishi Malik v. Attorney Gen. United States (3rd Cir. 2022).
Rivas Rosales v. Barr (N.D. Cal. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3) — 24 cases
Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019).
Julio Benedicto v. Merrick Garland, 12 F.4th 1049 (9th Cir. 2021).
J-f-f, 23 I. & N. Dec. 912 (BIA 2006).
M-a-m, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011).
Henri Calderon-Rodriguez v. Jefferson Sessions, 878 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4) — 91 cases
Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006).
Qureshi v. Holder, 663 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011).
Luis Aparicio-Brito v. Loretta E. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2016).
Angov v. Holder, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2013).
Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) — 92 cases
J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016).
Julio Donaldo Ponce-Leiva v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 331 F.3d 369 (3rd Cir. 2003).
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”
Eladio Gomez-Velazco v. Jefferson Sessions, 879 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Pedro Silvestre-Gregorio, 983 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A)(i) — 1 case
Olvera-Gonzalez v. Garland (9th Cir. 2023).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) — 255 cases
Angov v. Holder, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2013).
Olakunle Oshodi v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 729 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2013).
Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008).
Oleksandr Boyanivskyy v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 286 (7th Cir. 2006).
Daniel Salvador Hernandez-Guadarrama v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 394 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(C) — 47 cases
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”
Jose Alanniz v. William Barr, 924 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019).
Mohinder Singh v. John Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).
Fatjon Sterkaj Amemona Sokoli-Sterkaj v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 439 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2006).
Shabanali Ladha Khatoon Ladha Farzana S. Ladha v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(a) — 1 case
United States v. Romero-Caceres, 356 F. Supp. 3d 541 (E.D. Va. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) — 68 cases
Dorna Miller v. Jefferson Sessions, 889 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2018).
Melsi Garcia Nunez v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 882 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 2018).
Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002).
Edson Silva-Carvalho Lopes v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 468 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2006).
Normita Santo Domingo Fajardo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 300 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2002).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(2002) — 1 case
Ranjit Singh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Servs., 295 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) — 341 cases
Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2017).
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009).
Samuel Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 40 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022).
Celia Martinez v. William Barr, 941 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2019).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A)(2000) — 1 case
Ruano-Orellano v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 130 F. App'x 521 (3rd Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) — 71 cases
Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2017).
Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019).
Andrei Dragomirescu v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 44 F.4th 1351 (11th Cir. 2022).
Abdoulaye Ly v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 327 F. App'x 616 (6th Cir. 2009).
Gulzar Singh v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 412 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) — 278 cases
Yuzi Cui v. Merrick Garland, 13 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). The appeal argued that the prior attorney filed a motion to change venue (which does not appear in the record) due to Cui’s relocation to Tennessee, and that the IJ improperly denied the motion to change venue and issued an order of removal.”
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008). “8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (providing that a removal order entered in absentia is stayed automatically pending a motion to reopen); and, though the BIA has discretion to deny the motion for a stay, it may constitute an abuse of discretion for the BIA to do so where the motion…”
Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(2005) — 2 cases
Illangakoon v. Holder, 317 F. App'x 39 (2d Cir. 2009).
Illangakoon v. Holder, 317 F. App'x 39 (2d Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(I) — 6 cases
Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2008).
Luntungan v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 449 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Che v. Gonzales, 184 F. App'x 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
Shi Hui Zheng v. Gonzales, 194 F. App'x 111 (4th Cir. 2006).
Akwa v. Gonzales (4th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) — 369 cases
Yuzi Cui v. Merrick Garland, 13 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). The appeal argued that the prior attorney filed a motion to change venue (which does not appear in the record) due to Cui’s relocation to Tennessee, and that the IJ improperly denied the motion to change venue and issued an order of removal.”
Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland, 119 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2024).
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
Roberto Morales Diaz v. State of Iowa, 896 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa 2017).
Viridiana v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) — 303 cases
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2011).
Rodriguez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 935 (5th Cir. 2022).
Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).
Gustavo Barrios-Cantarero v. Eric Holder, Jr., 772 F.3d 1019 (5th Cir. 2014).
Juan Valadez-Lara v. William P. Barr, 963 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(l) — 2 cases
Duran v. Gonzales, 158 F. App'x 12 (9th Cir. 2005).
Afuhaamango v. Gonzales, 201 F. App'x 469 (9th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(n) — 1 case
Abida Pervaiz v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D) — 66 cases
Celia Martinez v. William Barr, 941 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2019).
Gualterio Santos-Santos v. William P. Barr, 917 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2019).
Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002).
Tsayo Cyrille Lonyem v. U.S. Attorney Gen., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 352 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2003).
Fong Yang Lo, AKA Fong Yang Yu Bin Lo v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 341 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(E) — 4 cases
Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019).
Sanchez-herbert, 26 I. & N. Dec. 43 (BIA 2012).
Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 924 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2019).
Andre Deliceano Miller v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2023).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(a) — 2 cases
Bakal v. Ashcroft, 56 F. App'x 650 (6th Cir. 2003).
Feng Ju Zhang v. Attorney Gen. United States, 514 F. App'x 142 (3rd Cir. 2013).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c) — 3 cases
Kholodilkina v. Atty Gen USA, 133 F. App'x 19 (3rd Cir. 2005).
Milentyeva v. Gonzales, 142 F. App'x 994 (9th Cir. 2005).
Patel v. Gonzales, 211 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(I) — 1 case
Gonzalez, Armando v. Gonzales, Alberto R., 166 F. App'x 238 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(i) — 4 cases
Panova-Bohannan v. Gonzales, 157 F. App'x 706 (5th Cir. 2005).
Nawaz v. Attorney Gen., 165 F. App'x 193 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Mendez-Lopez v. Gonzales, 217 F. App'x 644 (9th Cir. 2007).
Torres-Ramos v. Mukasey, 258 F. App'x 991 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(ii) — 4 cases
Varinder Singh v. Merrick Garland, 24 F.4th 1315 (9th Cir. 2022).
Duarte v. Barr (2d Cir. 2020).
Raymundo-Lima v. Garland (9th Cir. 2023).
Daniela Aguiluz Ortiz v. Merrick Garland (6th Cir. 2023).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(l) — 2 cases
Kaur v. Holder, 336 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2009).
Kaur v. Holder, 336 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(e) — 1 case
Andrade-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 244 F. App'x 110 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(6) — 2 cases
United States v. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012).
Armstrong v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(6)(A) — 3 cases
Stanislaw Pilch & Zofia Pilch v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 353 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2004).
Kaweesa v. Ashcroft, 345 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Mass. 2004).
Mojica v. Mukasey, 255 F. App'x 162 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(6)(C) — 1 case
Lesya Shunevych v. Jefferson Sessions, 677 F. App'x 450 (9th Cir. 2017).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(7) — 33 cases
Grigous v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2006).
Hoang Minh Ly v. Mark B. Hansen, James Ziglar, & John Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2004).
Akwada v. Ashcroft, 113 F. App'x 532 (4th Cir. 2004).
Daniel Ramos-Olivieri v. Atty Gen USA, 624 F.3d 622 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Derezinski v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(C)(i) — 1 case
Music v. United States Dep't of Just., 164 F. App'x 85 (2d Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l) — 97 cases
Miguel Perez-Fuentes v. Loretta E. Lynch, 842 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2016).
Doris C. Oforji v. John D. Ashcroft, United States Attorney Gen., 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003).
Jin Shui Qiu v. John Ashcroft, United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen., 329 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2003).
J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016).
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c) — 93 cases
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”
Dennis Medina-Morales v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 371 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2004).
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). “The Board's treatment and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii) under the facts presented is not inconsistent with 8 U.”
Victor Revencu v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 895 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2018).
Abebe v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1) — 1 case
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1)(A) — 27 cases
Virginia Garcia Cortes v. Merrick Garland, 105 F.4th 124 (4th Cir. 2024).
Fatos Vasha v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 410 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2005).
Lidia Ramirez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 902 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2018).
Garcia v. Garland, 64 F.4th 62 (2d Cir. 2023).
Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2013).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2) — 33 cases
Pankajkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020).
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 726 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2013).
Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005).
Pankajkumar S. Patel v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 917 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2019).
Castro v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 671 F.3d 356 (3rd Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A) — 70 cases
Jose Lopez-Vasquez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 706 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2013).
Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 2010).
Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005).
Lett v. Decker, 346 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
Catherine Torres v. William Barr, 976 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(B) — 32 cases
Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 2010).
Minto v. Jefferson Sessions, 854 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 2017).
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 387 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Luis Toro-Romero v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 382 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2004).
Francisco Rodriguez-Quiroz v. Loretta E. Lynch, 835 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(a) — 1 case
Jose Lara-Salas v. Eric Holder, Jr., 380 F. App'x 405 (5th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3) — 49 cases
Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020).
Christopher Pickering v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006).
Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2010).
Philander Salviejo-Fernandez, AKA Philander Salviejo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 455 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006).
Barradas v. Holder, 582 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) — 257 cases
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011).
Andrew Shaw v. Jefferson Sessions III, 898 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2018).
Matovski v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2007).
Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2008).
Richard Alexis v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 960 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B) — 85 cases
Dulal-Whiteway v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 501 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2007).
Jean-Louis v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 582 F.3d 462 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. 224 (2021).
Ali v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008).
Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(I) — 1 case
Patel, Vinodkumar F. v. Gonzales, Alberto, 178 F. App'x 564 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(i) — 5 cases
Osuna-Gutierrez v. Johnson, 838 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2016).
Jose Luis Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 710 F. App'x 442 (11th Cir. 2017).
Mousa v. Holder, 354 F. App'x 484 (2d Cir. 2009).
Schultz v. Gonzales, 221 F. App'x 726 (10th Cir. 2007).
St. Devon Anthony Cover v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 572 F. App'x 778 (11th Cir. 2014).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(ii) — 6 cases
Singh v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 526 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008).
Dulal-Whiteway v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 501 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2007).
Lopes v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2007).
Nguyen v. Garland, 996 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2021).
Dulal-Whiteway v. DHS (2d Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(iii) — 2 cases
Manuel Vera Rizo v. Jefferson Sessions, III (9th Cir. 2018).
Jose Bermudez Guzman v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(iv) — 3 cases
Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010).
Jackson Ndungu v. Attorney Gen. United States, 126 F.4th 150 (3rd Cir. 2025).
Windell Javillonar Retuta v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(v) — 3 cases
Reyes Teran-Ibarra v. Pamela Bondi (9th Cir. 2026).
De Medeiros v. Holder, 461 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2011).
Serafin-Herrera v. Gonzales, 235 F. App'x 603 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(vi) — 9 cases
Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 2008).
Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006).
Dulal-Whiteway v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 501 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2007).
Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey (5th Cir. 2009).
Dulal-Whiteway v. DHS (2d Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C) — 9 cases
Joaquin Sinotes-Cruz v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Ragbir v. Holder, 389 F. App'x 80 (2d Cir. 2010).
Campuzano v. Bondi (5th Cir. 2025).
Cardona-Hernandez v. Garland (9th Cir. 2023).
Lopez Gonzalez v. Bondi (9th Cir. 2025).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(a) — 2 cases
Pong an Kang v. Ashcroft, 109 F. App'x 561 (4th Cir. 2004).
Khan v. Gonzales, 124 F. App'x 817 (4th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4) — 74 cases
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the framework set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in order to carry his burden of proving that his conviction was not for a generic federal drug trafficking offense, Young must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction was for offering to sell cocaine,…”
Saidou Dia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 353 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2003). “In recognition of the serious consequences of an erroneous denial of asylum, Congress, in the INA, has given asylum seekers the right to present evidence to an immigra *267 tion judge (“U”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (2002), 1 the right to an administrative appeal of an adverse decision…”
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Aracely Marinelarena v. Jefferson Sessions, 869 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2017).
Aracely Marinelarena v. William Barr, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A) — 141 cases
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the framework set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in order to carry his burden of proving that his conviction was not for a generic federal drug trafficking offense, Young must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction was for offering to sell cocaine,…”
Mr. Budiono v. Loretta E. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2016).
Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder, 655 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2011).
Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2017).
Anh Le v. Loretta Lynch, 819 F.3d 98 (5th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i) — 75 cases
Anh Le v. Loretta Lynch, 819 F.3d 98 (5th Cir. 2016).
Manuel Guzman-Vazquez v. William P. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020).
Miriam Gutierrez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 887 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2018).
Jose Orellana-Arias v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 865 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017).
Jean-Louis v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 582 F.3d 462 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(ii) — 9 cases
Rainey Muoka Mutua v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 22 F.4th 963 (11th Cir. 2022).
D-e-b, 29 I. & N. Dec. 83 (BIA 2025).
E-a-s-o, 29 I. & N. Dec. 422 (BIA 2026).
P-a-c, 29 I. & N. Dec. 708 (BIA 2026).
Yanney v. Sessions (2d Cir. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) — 127 cases
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the framework set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in order to carry his burden of proving that his conviction was not for a generic federal drug trafficking offense, Young must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction was for offering to sell cocaine,…”
Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder, 655 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2011).
Mokorya Wambura v. William Barr, 980 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2020).
Manuel Guzman-Vazquez v. William P. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020).
J-j-g, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808 (BIA 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C) — 115 cases
Gerson E. Alvarenga-Flores v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 901 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2018).
El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2009).
Htun v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2016).
Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2008).
Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(a) — 2 cases
Angel Abad Solano-Chicas v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 1, 440 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2006).
Angel Solano-Chicas v. John Ashcroft (8th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(b) — 1 case
Reina v. Sessions, 698 F. App'x 6 (2d Cir. 2017).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(i) — 2 cases
Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch, 830 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2016).
Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch (6th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(ii) — 1 case
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the framework set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in order to carry his burden of proving that his conviction was not for a generic federal drug trafficking offense, Young must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction was for offering to sell cocaine,…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5) — 39 cases
Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020).
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022).
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”
Gerardo Bibiano Falcon Carriche Theresa v. De Falcon Carriche & Christina Pamela Falcon Bibiano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2003).
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A) — 7 cases
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”
Al Mutarreb v. Holder, 561 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2009).
Fan v. Gonzales (4th Cir. 2005).
Al Mutarrev v. Holder (9th Cir. 2009).
Singh v. Ashcroft, 106 F. App'x 620 (9th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(B) — 3 cases
Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001).
Omar v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 565 (1st Cir. 2016).
Rocha v. Gonzales, 125 F. App'x 893 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(C) — 7 cases
Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001).
Firelly E. Rios-Cano v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 151 F. App'x 916 (11th Cir. 2005).
Jean Martelly Brice v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 160 F. App'x 867 (11th Cir. 2005).
Mwinkeu v. Gonzales, 133 F. App'x 81 (4th Cir. 2005).
De Yun Li v. Atty Gen USA, 117 F. App'x 222 (3rd Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) — 182 cases
Tengiz Sevoian v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 290 F.3d 166 (3rd Cir. 2002).
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”
Gonzalez-Alarcon v. Macias, 884 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2018).
Kucana v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2008).
Elizabeth Lona v. William Barr, 958 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2020).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A) — 107 cases
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Salvador Azarte Celia Castellon v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2005).
William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007). “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”
Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001).
Gibriel Lari v. Eric Holder, Jr., 697 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) — 174 cases
Elizabeth Lona v. William Barr, 958 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2020).
Pllumi v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 642 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Jose Juan Martinez Barroso v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 429 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005).
Maricela M. Fernandez, Danelia Fernandez Covarrubias v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 439 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2006).
Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) — 235 cases
Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278 (5th Cir. 2021).
Pllumi v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 642 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Stanislav Iavorski v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000).
Mu Ju Li v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2008).
Lidia Ramirez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 902 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(I) — 1 case
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(i) — 23 cases
Tigran Ekimian Rouzan Nagapetian Avetis Hekimian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002).
Salvador Azarte Celia Castellon v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2005).
Maria Isabel Gonzalez De Martinez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 374 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2004).
Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359 (10th Cir. 2004).
Syed Mahmood v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 427 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(ii) — 15 cases
Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2010).
Lek Berishaj v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 378 F.3d 314 (3rd Cir. 2004).
Salvador Azarte Celia Castellon v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2005).
Alibasic v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2008).
Dong v. Gonzales, 143 F. App'x 430 (3rd Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(iv) — 4 cases
Wilmer Garcia Carias v. Eric Holder, Jr., 697 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2012).
Ovalles v. Holder, 577 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 2009).
Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011).
Ovalles v. Holder (5th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(a) — 2 cases
Azararte v. Ashcroft (9th Cir. 2005).
Calleros-Alcala v. Ashcroft, 118 F. App'x 213 (9th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(b) — 4 cases
Anis Shokri Salama Malty v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 381 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004).
Cirila Verastegui-Araujo v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2021).
Victor Urquiaga v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2010).
Urquiaga v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 401 F. App'x 724 (3rd Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(c) — 4 cases
Christian Rosales-Rivera v. Merrick B. Garland (6th Cir. 2023).
Erwin Cespedes v. Eric Holder, Jr., 542 F. App'x 227 (4th Cir. 2013).
Cornelio Lara-Ruiz v. Eric Holder, Jr., 590 F. App'x 220 (4th Cir. 2015).
Mohammed IK Masalmeh v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 628 F. App'x 661 (11th Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(i) — 2 cases
Azararte v. Ashcroft (9th Cir. 2005).
Sheraz v. Gonzales, 135 F. App'x 495 (2d Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(ii) — 1 case
Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) — 515 cases
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010). “A similar provision, enacted as part of IIRIRA, is now contained in 8 U. S. C. §1229a(b)(5)(C) (2006 ed.). As the Government notes, this provision does not apply in this case because petitioner challenges the denial of his second motion to reopen, which the parties agree is gov…”
Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008). “8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (providing that a removal order entered in absentia is stayed automatically pending a motion to reopen); and, though the BIA has discretion to deny the motion for a stay, it may constitute an abuse of discretion for the BIA to do so where the motion…”
Sergio Lugo-Resendez v. Loretta Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016).
Mendiola v. Holder, 585 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2009).
Ochoa v. Holder, 604 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) — 958 cases
William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007). “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”
Wilmer Garcia Carias v. Eric Holder, Jr., 697 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2012).
Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015).
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). “The Board's treatment and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii) under the facts presented is not inconsistent with 8 U.”
Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008). “8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (providing that a removal order entered in absentia is stayed automatically pending a motion to reopen); and, though the BIA has discretion to deny the motion for a stay, it may constitute an abuse of discretion for the BIA to do so where the motion…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C) — 3 cases
Khokhar v. Holder, 470 F. App'x 48 (2d Cir. 2012).
Ameti v. Holder, 536 F. App'x 126 (2d Cir. 2013).
Qin Fei Zheng v. Mukasey, 302 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)(i) — 3 cases
Sara Maria Vasquez v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 168 F. App'x 328 (11th Cir. 2006).
Amenul Hoque v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2012).
Hoque v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 475 F. App'x 415 (3rd Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) — 276 cases
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). “The Board's treatment and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii) under the facts presented is not inconsistent with 8 U.”
Rene Lemus-Escobar v. Pamela Bondi, 140 F.4th 1079 (9th Cir. 2025).
Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278 (5th Cir. 2021).
Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023).
Igli Filja, Luljeta Filja, Endrit Filja v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 447 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C) — 362 cases
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). “The Board's treatment and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii) under the facts presented is not inconsistent with 8 U.”
Liying Qiu v. Sessions, 870 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2017).
Hui Zheng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 647 (4th Cir. 2009).
Ying Liu v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 555 F.3d 145 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Chen v. Garland, 43 F.4th 244 (2d Cir. 2022).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I) — 31 cases
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008).
Hardeep Singh v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 491 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2007).
Barry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2008).
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Li Yun Lin v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1164 (8th Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(h) — 1 case
Khokhar v. Holder, 470 F. App'x 48 (2d Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) — 1278 cases
Rigoberto Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 713 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2013).
William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007). “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2011).
Melsi Garcia Nunez v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 882 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 2018).
Gor v. Holder, 607 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) — 1360 cases
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). “The Board's treatment and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii) under the facts presented is not inconsistent with 8 U.”
Khan v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 691 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 2012).
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008).
Pllumi v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 642 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Abdifatah Gaas Qorane v. William Barr, U. S. Atty, 919 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2019).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iii) — 6 cases
Paramjit Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch, 639 F. App'x 509 (9th Cir. 2016).
Soriano-Mendosa v. Sessions (10th Cir. 2019).
Blanco v. Mukasey, 311 F. App'x 68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Blanco v. Mukasey, 311 F. App'x 68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Kiang Li v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 247 F. App'x 214 (2d Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv) — 71 cases
William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007). “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”
Magana-Magana v. Garland, 129 F.4th 557 (9th Cir. 2024).
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Pena-Lopez v. Garland, 33 F.4th 798 (5th Cir. 2022).
Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996 (9th Cir. 2025).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(l) — 2 cases
Nigelarani Vakeesan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 343 F. App'x 117 (6th Cir. 2009).
Rosero v. Lynch, 605 F. App'x 61 (2d Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(n) — 1 case
Xiu Mei Wang v. Holder, 374 F. App'x 154 (2d Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(a) — 1 case
Hansa Persad v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 381 F. App'x 622 (8th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c) — 2 cases
Mathakutha v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 347 F. App'x 682 (2d Cir. 2009).
Mathakutha v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 347 F. App'x 682 (2d Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(i) — 7 cases
Twum v. Barr, 930 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2019).
Castro-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 154 F. App'x 833 (11th Cir. 2005).
Hansraj v. Holder, Jr., 456 F. App'x 743 (10th Cir. 2012).
Bo Lin v. Holder, 447 F. App'x 283 (2d Cir. 2012).
Xu v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(ii) — 6 cases
Meksida Mnatsakanyan v. Pamela Bondi (9th Cir. 2026).
Lesmana v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 493 F. App'x 327 (3rd Cir. 2012).
Niang Chung Shue v. Holder, 327 F. App'x 289 (2d Cir. 2009).
Niang Chung Shue v. Holder, 327 F. App'x 289 (2d Cir. 2009).
Qun Ying Shi v. Holder, 341 F. App'x 736 (2d Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(e)(i) — 1 case
Jun-Lan Zhang v. Holder, 430 F. App'x 56 (2d Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(i) — 5 cases
Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009).
Chernoh Barrie v. Atty Gen USA, 409 F. App'x 526 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Yang Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr. (7th Cir. 2010).
Carlos Eduardo Cabrera-Noriega v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 454 F. App'x 800 (11th Cir. 2011).
Bi Feng Liu v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (6th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(ii) — 11 cases
Joel Silva v. Merrick Garland, 993 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2021).
Yu Zhang v. Eric Holder, Jr., 702 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2012).
Munzer A. Zahren v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir. 2007).
Li Zhang v. Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 543 F. App'x 277 (3rd Cir. 2013).
Inga Barysheva v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2018).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(iv) — 1 case
D-e-b, 29 I. & N. Dec. 83 (BIA 2025).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(A)(4)(i) — 1 case
Osman Bonilla Ramirez v. Eric Holder, 425 F. App'x 512 (6th Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(iv) — 1 case
Feitosa v. Garland (5th Cir. 2024).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(l) — 2 cases
United States v. Ronald Sentamu, 212 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2000).
United States v. Ventura-Candelario, 981 F. Supp. 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(l)(A) — 15 cases
Blackman Hinds v. Holder, 790 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2015).
Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2013).
Xiu Mei Wei v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).
Hamdi Ex Rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano, 620 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2010).
Mena-Flores v. Holder, 776 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d) — 11 cases
United States v. Isaac Ramos, 623 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Soto-Mateo, 799 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2015).
United States v. Juan De La Cruz Morante, 375 F. Supp. 3d 707 (S.D. Tex. 2019).
United States v. Vasallo-Martinez, 360 F. App'x 731 (9th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Eliseo Lopez, 667 F. App'x 837 (4th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d)(1) — 2 cases
Gilberto Garcia-Romo v. William P. Barr, 940 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2019).
Alimi, Selman v. Ashcroft, John (7th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d)(l) — 1 case
Selman Alimi v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 391 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e) — 11 cases
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Janice Brewer, 855 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2017).
Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002).
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 818 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2016).
Ovalles v. Holder, 577 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 2009).
Arizona Dream Coalition Et v. Janice Brewer (9th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) — 127 cases
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland, 119 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2024).
Maria Acelina Valencia-Fragoso v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 321 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2003).
Jose Borges v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 402 F.3d 398 (3rd Cir. 2005).
Pedro Vilarde Reyes v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 358 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1)(A) — 1 case
Fatos Vasha v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 410 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2) — 32 cases
Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019).
Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005).
Jurado-Delgado v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 498 F. App'x 107 (3rd Cir. 2009).
Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024).
Qui Guan Di Zhang v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 274 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)(A) — 12 cases
Jose Lopez-Vasquez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 706 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2013).
Mohammed Subhan v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 383 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2004).
Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2011).
J.E.F.M. v. Holder, 107 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2015).
Munna Godfrey v. Loretta E. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)(B) — 7 cases
Frank Igwebuike Enwonwu v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 438 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2006).
Baljinder Singh v. Attorney Gen. United States, 12 F.4th 262 (3rd Cir. 2021).
Mozdzen v. Holder, 622 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Ventura-Candelario, 981 F. Supp. 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Nouy Sok v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3) — 2 cases
Leslie Ward v. Eric Holder, Jr., 733 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2013).
Calix v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 423 F. App'x 240 (3rd Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(A) — 10 cases
Joaquin Sinotes-Cruz v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Latu v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
Michael Negele v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States Thomas Ridge, Dir. of Homeland Sec., 368 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2004).
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2003).
King v. Holder, 570 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(B) — 3 cases
Vaca-Tellez, Jose M. v. Mukasey, Michael B., 540 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2008).
Lopes v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2007).
Anton Sennhauser v. Eric Holder, Jr., 591 F. App'x 612 (9th Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(B)(i) — 1 case
Patel, Vinodkumar F. v. Gonzales, Alberto, 178 F. App'x 564 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(B)(vi) — 2 cases
Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006).
Flores v. Gonzales, 197 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4) — 1 case
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under the framework set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in order to carry his burden of proving that his conviction was not for a generic federal drug trafficking offense, Young must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction was for offering to sell cocaine,…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(A) — 3 cases
Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder, 630 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011).
Cardenas v. Lynch, 669 F. App'x 354 (9th Cir. 2016).
Felix Ramos v. Eric Holder, Jr., 546 F. App'x 705 (9th Cir. 2013).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(A)(i) — 5 cases
Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch, 830 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2016).
Sanchez v. Holder, 614 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2010).
Garcia Maria De La Luz v. Attorney Gen. United States, 578 F. App'x 156 (3rd Cir. 2014).
Casarez v. Holder, 425 F. App'x 603 (9th Cir. 2011).
Veronica Canar Yanez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 586 F. App'x 364 (9th Cir. 2014).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(B) — 4 cases
Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder, 630 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011).
Julio Barahona-Vallecillo v. Jefferson Sessions, 678 F. App'x 549 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sharma v. Holder, 457 F. App'x 614 (9th Cir. 2011).
Hamet Sall v. Eric Holder, Jr., 575 F. App'x 656 (6th Cir. 2014).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(C) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. Holder, 736 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2013).
Hong Chen v. Holder, 469 F. App'x 8 (2d Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(5) — 3 cases
Belay-Gebru v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 327 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2003).
Ali v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008).
Buquer v. City of Indianapolis, 797 F. Supp. 2d 905 (S.D. Ind. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(5)(C) — 1 case
Martin Cardenas-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 167 F. App'x 124 (11th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6) — 7 cases
Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011).
Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2010).
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Bobby Siagian v. Eric Holder, Jr., 478 F. App'x 201 (5th Cir. 2012).
Chun Ming Zhang v. Holder, 598 F. App'x 800 (2d Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(A) — 7 cases
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Mahbuber Rahman v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 187 F. App'x 962 (11th Cir. 2006).
Marcelino Melendez-Amaya v. Eric Holder, Jr., 541 F. App'x 495 (5th Cir. 2013).
Ronald Soza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 360 F. App'x 77 (11th Cir. 2010).
Sulam Sidhwani v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 191 F. App'x 873 (11th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(B) — 4 cases
Usha Bhasin v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005).
Gor v. Holder, 607 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2010).
Gonzalez-Polanco v. Holder, 357 F. App'x 326 (2d Cir. 2009).
Singh v. Gonzales, 223 F. App'x 702 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C) — 13 cases
Aleksandr Yeremin v. Eric Holder, Jr., 707 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2013).
Hui Zheng v. Lynch, 632 F. App'x 626 (2d Cir. 2015).
Lenis Irene Arboleda Bohorguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 578 F. App'x 846 (11th Cir. 2014).
Vivian Lady Manzano Fernandez v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 362 F. App'x 42 (11th Cir. 2010).
Magda Catalina Merino Barreto v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 164 F. App'x 890 (11th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C)(i) — 4 cases
De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).
Nikollbibaj v. Gonzales, 232 F. App'x 546 (6th Cir. 2007).
Chen v. Ashcroft, 131 F. App'x 734 (1st Cir. 2005).
Gelana Amente v. Alberto Gonzales, 192 F. App'x 585 (8th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C)(ii) — 2 cases
Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2005).
Xuan Li Zheng v. Ashcroft, 89 F. App'x 76 (9th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C)(iv) — 1 case
Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7) — 27 cases
Sergio Lugo-Resendez v. Loretta Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016).
MacArio Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2016).
Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011).
Yan Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr., 728 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2013).
Jose Anaya-Aguilar v. Eric Holder, 683 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(A) — 51 cases
Perez Santana v. Holder, 731 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2013).
Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009).
Rigoberto Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 713 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2013).
Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010).
Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(A)(i) — 1 case
Michael Ogwude v. Loretta Lynch, 650 F. App'x 204 (5th Cir. 2016).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(B) — 9 cases
Jun Li Xiao v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 219 F. App'x 862 (11th Cir. 2007).
Elsa Gutierrez Quintero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 288 F. App'x 586 (11th Cir. 2008).
Bin Xu v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 381 F. App'x 953 (11th Cir. 2010).
Juan Diego Trujillo Castro v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 341 F. App'x 564 (11th Cir. 2009).
Singh v. Holder, 402 F. App'x 598 (2d Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C) — 14 cases
Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011).
Zheng v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2007).
Yong Xiu Lian v. Holder, 437 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2011).
Xue Hui Zhang v. Mukasey, 303 F. App'x 9 (2d Cir. 2008).
Fichera v. Sessions, 699 F. App'x 38 (2d Cir. 2017).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(I) — 7 cases
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008).
Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). “My respected colleagues in the majority conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is silent on the question of whether, subsequent to departure from the United States, an alien *1162 may file a motion to reconsider removability under § 1229a(c)(6)(A), or a motion to reopen removal…”
Ndoci v. Holder, 448 F. App'x 141 (2d Cir. 2011).
Ysalas Patino-Ortiz v. Eric Holder, Jr., 593 F. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2015).
Shui Qim Zou v. Holder, 595 F. App'x 92 (2d Cir. 2015).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(i) — 77 cases
Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2011).
Cipto Chandra v. Eric Holder, Jr., 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).
Mahamat v. Ashcroft, 430 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005).
Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2007).
Silva-Carvalho Lopes v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(ii) — 104 cases
Igli Filja, Luljeta Filja, Endrit Filja v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 447 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009).
Bin Zhao v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 440 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2006).
Sunita Patel, Kamarkant Patel, Pallavi Patel, & Kalpana Patel v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 442 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2006).
Ji Cheng Ni v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 715 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2013).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(iv) — 3 cases
Wenqin Sun v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cardenas v. Lynch, 669 F. App'x 354 (9th Cir. 2016).
Aboubakar Yari v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 192 F. App'x 842 (11th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(a) — 1 case
Hansa Persad v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 381 F. App'x 622 (8th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(ii) — 1 case
Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(A) — 1 case
Sabino v. Reno, 8 F. Supp. 2d 622 (S.D. Tex. 1998).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(B) — 1 case
Sabino v. Reno, 8 F. Supp. 2d 622 (S.D. Tex. 1998).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) — 147 cases
Juan Monjaraz-Munoz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 327 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2003).
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008). “An in absentia removal order "may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this…”
Svitlana Denko v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 351 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2003).
Maricarmen Garcia Arredondo v. Loretta E. Lynch, 824 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2016).
Herbert v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2003).
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.