8 U.S.C. § 1229a

Removal proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 8 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Proceeding(1) In general

An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.

(2) Charges

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.

(3) Exclusive procedures

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.

(b) Conduct of proceeding(1) Authority of immigration judge

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.

(2) Form of proceeding(A) In generalThe proceeding may take place—(i) in person,(ii) where agreed to by the parties, in the absence of the alien,(iii) through video conference, or(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), through telephone conference.(B) Consent required in certain cases

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.

(3) Presence of alien

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.

(4) Alien’s rights in proceedingIn proceedings under this section, under regulations of the Attorney General—(A) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings,(B) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government but these rights shall not entitle the alien to examine such national security information as the Government may proffer in opposition to the alien’s admission to the United States or to an application by the alien for discretionary relief under this chapter, and(C) a complete record shall be kept of all testimony and evidence produced at the proceeding.(5) Consequences of failure to appear(A) In general

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.

(B) No notice if failure to provide address information

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.

(C) Rescission of orderSuch an order may be rescinded only—(i) 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)), or(ii) upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title or the alien demonstrates that the alien was in Federal or State custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of the alien.The filing of the motion to reopen described in clause (i) or (ii) shall stay the removal of the alien pending disposition of the motion by the immigration judge.(D) Effect on judicial review

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.

(E) Additional application to certain aliens in contiguous territory

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.

(6) Treatment of frivolous behaviorThe Attorney General shall, by regulation—(A) define in a proceeding before an immigration judge or before an appellate administrative body under this subchapter, frivolous behavior for which attorneys may be sanctioned,(B) specify the circumstances under which an administrative appeal of a decision or ruling will be considered frivolous and will be summarily dismissed, and(C) impose appropriate sanctions (which may include suspension and disbarment) in the case of frivolous behavior.Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Attorney General to take actions with respect to inappropriate behavior.(7) Limitation on discretionary relief for failure to appear

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.

(B) Certain medical decisions

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.

(2) Burden on alienIn the proceeding the alien has the burden of establishing—(A) if the alien is an applicant for admission, that the alien is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under section 1182 of this title; or(B) by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission.In meeting the burden of proof under subparagraph (B), the alien shall have access to the alien’s visa or other entry document, if any, and any other records and documents, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to the alien’s admission or presence in the United States.(3) Burden on service in cases of deportable aliens(A) In general

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.

(B) Proof of convictionsIn any proceeding under this chapter, any of the following documents or records (or a certified copy of such an official document or record) shall constitute proof of a criminal conviction:(i) An official record of judgment and conviction.(ii) An official record of plea, verdict, and sentence.(iii) A docket entry from court records that indicates the existence of the conviction.(iv) Official minutes of a court proceeding or a transcript of a court hearing in which the court takes notice of the existence of the conviction.(v) An abstract of a record of conviction prepared by the court in which the conviction was entered, or by a State official associated with the State’s repository of criminal justice records, that indicates the charge or section of law violated, the disposition of the case, the existence and date of conviction, and the sentence.(vi) Any document or record prepared by, or under the direction of, the court in which the conviction was entered that indicates the existence of a conviction.(vii) Any document or record attesting to the conviction that is maintained by an official of a State or Federal penal institution, which is the basis for that institution’s authority to assume custody of the individual named in the record.(C) Electronic recordsIn any proceeding under this chapter, any record of conviction or abstract that has been submitted by electronic means to the Service from a State or court shall be admissible as evidence to prove a criminal conviction if it is—(i) certified by a State official associated with the State’s repository of criminal justice records as an official record from its repository or by a court official from the court in which the conviction was entered as an official record from its repository, and(ii) certified in writing by a Service official as having been received electronically from the State’s record repository or the court’s record repository.A certification under clause (i) may be by means of a computer-generated signature and statement of authenticity.(4) Applications for relief from removal(A) In generalAn alien applying for relief or protection from removal has the burden of proof to establish that the alien—(i) satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements; and(ii) with respect to any form of relief that is granted in the exercise of discretion, that the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion.(B) Sustaining burden

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.

(5) Notice

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.

(6) Motions to reconsider(A) In general

The alien may file one motion to reconsider a decision that the alien is removable from the United States.

(B) Deadline

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.

(7) Motions to reopen(A) In general

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).

(B) Contents

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.

(ii) Asylum

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 11 So in original. 1158 or 1231(b)(3) of this title and is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.

(iii) Failure to appear

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.

(iv) Special rule for battered spouses, children, and parentsAny limitation under this section on the deadlines for filing such motions shall not apply—(I) if the basis for the motion is to apply for relief under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 1154(a)(1)(A) of this title, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 1154(a)(1)(B) of this title,,¹ section 1229b(b) of this title, or section 1254(a)(3) of this title (as in effect on March 31, 1997);(II) if the motion is accompanied by a cancellation of removal application to be filed with the Attorney General or by a copy of the self-petition that has been or will be filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the granting of the motion to reopen;(III) if the motion to reopen is filed within 1 year of the entry of the final order of removal, except that the Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive this time limitation in the case of an alien who demonstrates extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the alien’s child; and(IV) if the alien is physically present in the United States at the time of filing the motion. The filing of a motion to reopen under this clause shall only stay the removal of a qualified alien (as defined in section 1641(c)(1)(B) of this title 22 So in original. A closing parenthesis probably should appear. pending the final disposition of the motion, including exhaustion of all appeals if the motion establishes that the alien is a qualified alien.(d) Stipulated removal

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.

(e) DefinitionsIn this section and section 1229b of this title:(1) Exceptional circumstances

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.

(2) RemovableThe term “removable” means—(A) in the case of an alien not admitted to the United States, that the alien is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, or(B) in the case of an alien admitted to the United States, that the alien is deportable under section 1227 of this title.(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 4, § 240, as added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 304(a)(3), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–589; amended Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title V, § 1506(c)(1)(A), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1528; Pub. L. 109–13, div. B, title I, § 101(d), May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 304; Pub. L. 109–162, title VIII, §§ 813(a)(1), 825(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3057, 3063.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

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), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–615.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 240 of act June 27, 1952, was renumbered section 240C, and is classified to section 1230 of this title.

Amendments

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 March 31, 1997)” for “or section 1229b(b) of this title”, was executed by making the substitution for “or section 1229b(b)(2) of this title”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–162, title VIII, § 813(a)(2), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3058, provided that: “The amendment made by paragraph (1) [amending this section] shall apply to a failure to appear that occurs before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 5, 2006].”

Effective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–13 effective May 11, 2005, and applicable to applications for asylum, withholding, or other relief from removal made on or after such date, see section 101(h)(2) of Pub. L. 109–13, set out as a note under section 1158 of this title.

Effective Date of 2000 Amendment

Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title V, § 1506(c)(1)(B), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1528, provided that: “The amendment made by subparagraph (A) [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1229–1229c) [Pub. L. 104–208].”

Effective Date

Section effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendments note under section 1101 of this title.

Subsec. (c)(3)(B), (C) of this section applicable to proving convictions entered before, on, or after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 322(c) of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendments note under section 1101 of this title.

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

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.

Elimination of Time Limitations on Motions To Reopen Deportation Proceedings for Victims of Domestic Violence

Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title V, § 1506(c)(2), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1528, as amended by Pub. L. 109–162, title VIII, §§ 814(a), 825(b), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3058, 3064, provided that:“(A)(i)In general.—Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by law on motions to reopen or rescind deportation proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.] (as in effect before the title III–A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104–208] (8 U.S.C. 1101 note))—“(I) there is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen such proceedings, and the deadline specified in section 242B(c)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as so in effect) (8 U.S.C. 1252b(c)(3)) does not apply—“(aa) if the basis of the motion is to apply for relief under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)), clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)), or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as so in effect) (8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(3)); and“(bb) if the motion is accompanied by a suspension of deportation application to be filed with the Secretary of Homeland Security or by a copy of the self-petition that will be filed with the Department of Homeland Security upon the granting of the motion to reopen; and“(II) any such limitation shall not apply so as to prevent the filing of one motion to reopen described in section 240(c)(7)(C)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)).“(ii)Prima facie case.—The filing of a motion to reopen under this subparagraph shall only stay the removal of a qualified alien (as defined in section 431(c)(1)(B) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(1)(B))[)] pending the final disposition of the motion, including exhaustion of all appeals if the motion establishes that the alien is a qualified alien.“(B)Applicability.—Subparagraph (A) shall apply to motions filed by aliens who are physically present in the United States and who—“(i) are, or were, in deportation or exclusion proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.] (as in effect before the title III–A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)); and“(ii) have become eligible to apply for relief described in subparagraph (A)(i) as a result of the amendments made by—“(I) subtitle G [§ 40701 et seq.] of title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1953 et seq.) [see Tables for classification]; or“(II) this title [see Short Title of 2000 Amendment note set out under section 1101 of this title].”

References to Order of Removal Deemed To Include Order of Exclusion and Deportation

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

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008) ca2 · cites it 22× “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 (2012) ca9 · cites it 32× “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 (2007) ca4 · cites it 27× “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”

Rosillo-Puga v. Holder (2009) ca10 · cites it 37× “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 (2021) ca9 · cites it 18× “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 (2006) ca5 · cites it 15× “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”

Dada v. Mukasey (2008) scotus · cites it 12× “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 (2010) scotus · cites it 9× “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 (2008) ca9 · cites it 10× “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 General of the United States (2003) ca3 · cites it 7× “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 (2021) ca4 · cites it 11× “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 General (2017) ca11 · cites it 8× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”

Show all 7,589 citing cases →

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(1) — 6 cases

United States v. Juan Bastide-Hernandez (2022) ca9

United States v. Juan De La Cruz Morante (2019) txsd

Patricia Martinez-Manzanarez v. William Barr, U. S (2020) ca5

Carlos Gustavo Pardo Gomez v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and FNU LNU, Director of the Torrance C (2026) nmd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(1)(1) — 2 cases

Vladimir Matcharashvili v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and Mary De Anda Ybarra, Director, E (2026) nmd

Manuel Betancourth Espinal v. Mary De Anda Ybarra, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, EL PASO (2026) nmd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(2)(A) — 1 case

Maria Rodriguez-Reyes v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2014) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(2)(A)(iii) — 1 case

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, NEW JERSEY CHAPTER v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (2020) njd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(3) — 5 cases

People v. Guzman (2015) illappct

Rolando M. Sierra, Sr. v. D. Romaine, Warden Immigration & Naturalization Service John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the (2003) ca3

People v. Guzman (2014) illappct

Leon Hugh Gavaskar Mattie v. Attorney General USA (2014) ca3

Sierra v. Romaine (2003) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(3)(1) — 1 case

Daniela Aguiluz Ortiz v. Merrick Garland (2023) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(4) — 2 cases

Sarbpreet Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2014) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(4)(A)(I) — 2 cases

Philander Salviejo-Fernandez, AKA Philander Salviejo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca9

Salviejo-Fernandez v. Gonzales (2006) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(4)(C) — 1 case

Penaranda Arevalo v. Bondi (2025) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(5)(A) — 2 cases

Webb v. Weiss (1999) ctd

Sandhu v. Gonzales (2006) ca1

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(5)(B) — 2 cases

Carissa Ann Marie Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (2002) ca11

Renaut v. Holder, Jr. (2015) ca1

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(5)(C) — 3 cases

Webb v. Weiss (1999) ctd

Patel v. Holder (2010) ca2

Singh v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(6) — 1 case

American Immigration Council v. Executive Office For Immigration Review (2019) nysd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(6)(C)(i) — 1 case

Fan v. Gonzales (2005) ca4

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7) — 2 cases

Grigous v. Gonzales (2006) ca1

Saidou Sao v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2010) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(A) — 5 cases

Yang v. Mukasey (2007) ca8

Angel Cun-Luc v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca8

Kolodziej v. Attorney General (2008) ca3

Bounty Lue Yang v. Alberto Gonzales (2007) ca8

Buenrostro-Lomeli v. Gonzales (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(B) — 1 case

Gao v. Sessions (2018) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(C) — 1 case

Baldi v. Holder (2012) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(C)(i) — 3 cases

Mariano Granados-Oseguera v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca9

Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (2018) ca8

Granados-Osegura v. Gonzales (2006) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(B)(5)(A) — 1 case

Bhanot v. Chertoff (2007) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(B)(5)(C)(ii) — 1 case

Martin Torres Hernandez v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(C)(7)(c)(i) — 1 case

He v. Garland (2023) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a) — 50 cases

Nken v. Holder (2009) scotus

Santiago Alvarez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (2016) ca11

United States v. Romeo (1997) ca11

Martinez-Guevara v. Garland (2022) ca5

Sammir A. Poveda v. U.S. Attorney General (2012) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1) — 116 cases

Darvin Daniel Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General (2019) ca11

Santiago Alvarez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (2016) ca11

Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge (2019) ca5

Carlos Bastardo-Vale v. Attorney General United States (2019) ca3

Hisham D. Abu-Khaliel v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General (2006) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1)(G)(ii) — 1 case

Singh v. Holder (2014) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(2) — 22 cases

Balogun v. Ashcroft (2001) ca5

Matovski v. Gonzales (2007) ca6

Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (2006) ca3

Lattab v. Ashcroft (2004) ca1

David Ibragimov v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2007) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3) — 75 cases

Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch (2013) ca5

Demore v. Kim (2003) scotus

Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca9

Jose Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Jefferson Sessions (2018) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(4)(A) — 1 case

United States v. Rosendo Valdivias-Soto (2024) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5) — 1 case

Maknojiya v. Gonzales (2005) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5)(A) — 1 case

Anyah v. Heston (2003) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5)(C)(ii) — 1 case

Maknojiya v. Gonzales (2005) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(7) — 1 case

Williams v. Wolf (2020) miwd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(7)(C)(i) — 3 cases

Benbin Zeng vs U.S. Attorney General (2011) ca11

Yan Jin Zao v. U.S. Attorney General (2010) ca11

Memia v. U.S. Attorney General (2010) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(I) — 1 case

Rasaq Opyemi Sanusi v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General (2006) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(c)(6) — 4 cases

Hafeez v. Holder (2010) ca2

Yin Ting Lian v. Holder (2010) ca2

Ukani v. Holder (2009) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(l) — 46 cases

Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

Lorenzo v. Mukasey (2007) ca10

Hisham D. Abu-Khaliel v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General (2006) ca6

Charles Osiemo Onyinkwa v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General for the United States of America (2004) ca8

Igli Filja, Luljeta Filja, Endrit Filja v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) — 37 cases

Abtew v. United States Department of Homeland Security (2014) dcd

Kucana v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

Andrea Patricia Duvall, (Nee Andrea Patricia Phillips) v. Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca3

Mynor Tun-Cos v. B. Perrotte (2019) ca4

Gomez-Palacios v. Holder (2009) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) — 121 cases

Miguel Arevalo-Quintero v. Merrick Garland (2021) ca4 “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 (2021) ca9

J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. Lynch (2016) ca9

Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General (2017) ca11 “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”

Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2002) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1)(A)(iii) — 1 case

Eric Atugah v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2009) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1)(C) — 1 case

Gomez Vivanco v. Holder (2010) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1l) — 1 case

Martin Campos-Luna v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2) — 19 cases

Manuel Vilchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca9

Richardson v. Reno (1998) ca11

Kwok Sze v. Johnson (2016) dcd

Sarr v. Garland (2022) ca2

Mohamed Bouras v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2015) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A) — 7 cases

Omar Gomaa Orabi v. Attorney General United States (2014) ca3

Angov v. Holder (2013) ca9

United States v. Paredes-Batista (1998) ca2

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, NEW JERSEY CHAPTER v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (2020) njd

Doe v. Decker (2021) nysd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(ii) — 5 cases

Miguel Angel Ramos v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2005) ca7

Tang v. Ashcroft (2003) ca10

Martha Isabel Rosales-Mendez v. U.S. Attorney General (2024) ca11

Ramos Ramos, Miguel v. Gonzales, Alberto R. (2005) ca7

Feng Chai Wang v. United States Department of Justice (2005) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(iii) — 18 cases

Manuel Vilchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca9

Rapheal v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

Eke v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

Aslam v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

NCHIFOR (2022) bia

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(iv) — 1 case

Öztürk v. Hyde (2025) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(B) — 6 cases

Manuel Vilchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca9

United States v. Paredes-Batista (1998) ca2

Li v. Garland (2021) ca2

Rishi Malik v. Attorney General United States (2022) ca3

Rivas Rosales v. Barr (2020) cand

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3) — 24 cases

Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge (2019) ca5

Julio Benedicto v. Merrick Garland (2021) ca9

J-F-F (2006) bia

M-A-M (2011) bia

Henri Calderon-Rodriguez v. Jefferson Sessions (2018) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4) — 91 cases

Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales (2006) ca5

Qureshi v. Holder (2011) ca5

Luis Aparicio-Brito v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca7

Angov v. Holder (2013) ca9

Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2002) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) — 92 cases

J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. Lynch (2016) ca9

Julio Donaldo Ponce-Leiva v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (2003) ca3

Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General (2017) ca11 “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”

Eladio Gomez-Velazco v. Jefferson Sessions (2018) ca9

United States v. Pedro Silvestre-Gregorio (2020) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A)(i) — 1 case

Olvera-Gonzalez v. Garland (2023) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) — 255 cases

Angov v. Holder (2013) ca9

Olakunle Oshodi v. Eric H. Holder Jr. (2013) ca9

Rapheal v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

Oleksandr Boyanivskyy v. Alberto R. Gonzales (2006) ca7

Daniel Salvador Hernandez-Guadarrama v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2005) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(C) — 47 cases

Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General (2017) ca11 “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”

Jose Alanniz v. William Barr (2019) ca9

Mohinder Singh v. John Ashcroft (2004) ca9

Fatjon Sterkaj Amemona Sokoli-Sterkaj v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca6

Shabanali Ladha Khatoon Ladha Farzana S. Ladha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(a) — 1 case

United States v. Romero-Caceres (2018) vaed

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) — 68 cases

Dorna Miller v. Jefferson Sessions (2018) ca9

Melsi Garcia Nunez v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2018) ca5

Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2002) ca9

Edson Silva-Carvalho Lopes v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca2

Normita Santo Domingo Fajardo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(2002) — 1 case

Ranjit Singh v. Immigration and Naturalization Services (2002) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) — 341 cases

Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2017) ca5

Perez v. Mukasey (2008) ca9 “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 (2009) ca5

Samuel Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney General (2022) ca11

Celia Martinez v. William Barr (2019) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A)(2000) — 1 case

Ruano-Orellano v. Attorney General of the United States (2005) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) — 71 cases

Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2017) ca5

Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen (2019) ca5

Andrei Dragomirescu v. U.S. Attorney General (2022) ca11

Abdoulaye Ly v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2009) ca6

Gulzar Singh v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) — 278 cases

Yuzi Cui v. Merrick Garland (2021) ca9 “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 (2006) ca5 “23 (b)(4)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) governed the timeliness of his motion to reopen.”

Dada v. Mukasey (2008) scotus “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 (2007) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(2005) — 2 cases

Illangakoon v. Holder (2009) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(I) — 6 cases

Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey (2008) ca1

Luntungan v. Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca3

Che v. Gonzales (2006) ca4

Shi Hui Zheng v. Gonzales (2006) ca4

Akwa v. Gonzales (2006) ca4

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) — 369 cases

Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland (2024) ca9

Roberto Morales Diaz v. State of Iowa (2017) iowa

Viridiana v. Holder (2011) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) — 303 cases

Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder (2011) ca9

Rodriguez v. Garland (2022) ca5

Rodriguez v. Garland (2021) ca5

Gustavo Barrios-Cantarero v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2014) ca5

Juan Valadez-Lara v. William P. Barr (2020) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(l) — 2 cases

Duran v. Gonzales (2005) ca9

Afuhaamango v. Gonzales (2006) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(n) — 1 case

Abida Pervaiz v. Alberto R. Gonzales (2005) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D) — 66 cases

Celia Martinez v. William Barr (2019) ca9

Gualterio Santos-Santos v. William P. Barr (2019) ca6

Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2002) ca9

Tsayo Cyrille Lonyem v. U.S. Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service (2003) ca11

Fong Yang Lo, AKA Fong Yang Yu Bin Lo v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General (2003) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(E) — 4 cases

Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen (2019) ca5

SANCHEZ-HERBERT (2012) bia

Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen (2019) ca5

Andre Deliceano Miller v. U.S. Attorney General (2023) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(a) — 2 cases

Bakal v. Ashcroft (2003) ca6

Feng Ju Zhang v. Attorney General United States (2013) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c) — 3 cases

Kholodilkina v. Atty Gen USA (2005) ca3

Milentyeva v. Gonzales (2005) ca9

Patel v. Gonzales (2006) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(I) — 1 case

Gonzalez, Armando v. Gonzales, Alberto R. (2006) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(i) — 4 cases

Panova-Bohannan v. Gonzales (2005) ca5

Nawaz v. Attorney General (2006) ca3

Mendez-Lopez v. Gonzales (2007) ca9

Torres-Ramos v. Mukasey (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(ii) — 4 cases

Varinder Singh v. Merrick Garland (2022) ca9

Duarte v. Barr (2020) ca2

Raymundo-Lima v. Garland (2023) ca9

Daniela Aguiluz Ortiz v. Merrick Garland (2023) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(c)(l) — 2 cases

Kaur v. Holder (2009) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(e) — 1 case

Andrade-Cervantes v. Gonzales (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(6) — 2 cases

United States v. Aleo (2012) ca6

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security (2015) mied

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(6)(A) — 3 cases

Stanislaw Pilch and Zofia Pilch v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (2004) ca7

Kaweesa v. Ashcroft (2004) mad

Mojica v. Mukasey (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(6)(C) — 1 case

Lesya Shunevych v. Jefferson Sessions (2017) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(7) — 33 cases

Grigous v. Gonzales (2006) ca1

Hoang Minh Ly v. Mark B. Hansen, James Ziglar, and John Ashcroft (2004) ca6

Akwada v. Ashcroft (2004) ca4

Daniel Ramos-Olivieri v. Atty Gen USA (2010) ca3

Derezinski v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(C)(i) — 1 case

Music v. United States Department of Justice (2006) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l) — 97 cases

Miguel Perez-Fuentes v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca7

Doris C. Oforji v. John D. Ashcroft, United States Attorney General (2003) ca7

Jin Shui Qiu v. John Ashcroft, United States Department of Justice, Attorney General (2003) ca2

J.E. F.M. Ex Rel. Ekblad v. Lynch (2016) ca9

Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General (2017) ca11 “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 General (2017) ca11 “See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1), (c); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.”

Dennis Medina-Morales v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2004) ca9

Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008) ca2 “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 (2018) ca5

Abebe v. Gonzales (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1) — 1 case

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1)(A) — 27 cases

Virginia Garcia Cortes v. Merrick Garland (2024) ca4

Fatos Vasha v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca6

Lidia Ramirez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (2018) ca8

Garcia v. Garland (2023) ca2

Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont (2013) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2) — 33 cases

Pankajkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney General (2020) ca11

Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch (2013) ca5

Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Pankajkumar S. Patel v. U.S. Attorney General (2019) ca11

Castro v. Attorney General of United States (2012) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A) — 70 cases

Jose Lopez-Vasquez v. Eric H. Holder Jr. (2013) ca9

Valadez-Munoz v. Holder (2010) ca9

Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Lett v. Decker (2018) ilsd

Catherine Torres v. William Barr (2020) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(B) — 32 cases

Dent v. Holder (2010) ca9

Minto v. Jefferson Sessions (2017) ca9

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (2019) cadc

Luis Toro-Romero v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2004) ca9

Francisco Rodriguez-Quiroz v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(a) — 1 case

Jose Lara-Salas v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2010) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3) — 49 cases

Velasco Lopez v. Decker (2020) ca2

Christopher Pickering v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca6

Puc-Ruiz v. Holder (2010) ca8

Philander Salviejo-Fernandez, AKA Philander Salviejo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca9

Barradas v. Holder (2009) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) — 257 cases

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder (2011) ca9

Andrew Shaw v. Jefferson Sessions III (2018) ca4

Matovski v. Gonzales (2007) ca6

Kawashima v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

Richard Alexis v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen (2020) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B) — 85 cases

Dulal-Whiteway v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2007) ca2

Jean-Louis v. Attorney General of the United States (2009) ca3

Pereida v. Wilkinson (2021) scotus

Ali v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

Kawashima v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(I) — 1 case

Patel, Vinodkumar F. v. Gonzales, Alberto (2006) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(i) — 5 cases

Osuna-Gutierrez v. Johnson (2016) ca10

Jose Luis Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney General (2017) ca11

Mousa v. Holder (2009) ca2

Schultz v. Gonzales (2007) ca10

St. Devon Anthony Cover v. U.S. Attorney General (2014) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(ii) — 6 cases

Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security (2008) ca2

Dulal-Whiteway v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2007) ca2

Lopes v. Keisler (2007) ca1

Nguyen v. Garland (2021) ca5

Dulal-Whiteway v. DHS (2007) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(iii) — 2 cases

Manuel Vera Rizo v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2018) ca9

Jose Bermudez Guzman v. William Barr (2020) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(iv) — 3 cases

Retuta v. Holder (2010) ca9

Jackson Ndungu v. Attorney General United States (2025) ca3

Windell Javillonar Retuta v. Holder (2010) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(v) — 3 cases

Reyes Teran-Ibarra v. Pamela Bondi (2026) ca9

De Medeiros v. Holder (2011) ca9

Serafin-Herrera v. Gonzales (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(vi) — 9 cases

Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey (2008) ca5

Conteh v. Gonzales (2006) ca1

Dulal-Whiteway v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2007) ca2

Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey (2009) ca5

Dulal-Whiteway v. DHS (2007) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C) — 9 cases

Joaquin Sinotes-Cruz v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca9

Ragbir v. Holder (2010) ca2

Campuzano v. Bondi (2025) ca5

Cardona-Hernandez v. Garland (2023) ca9

Lopez Gonzalez v. Bondi (2025) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(a) — 2 cases

Pong an Kang v. Ashcroft (2004) ca4

Khan v. Gonzales (2005) ca4

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4) — 74 cases

Young v. Holder (2012) ca9 “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 General of the United States (2003) ca3 “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 (2001) scotus

Aracely Marinelarena v. Jefferson Sessions (2017) ca9

Aracely Marinelarena v. William Barr (2019) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A) — 141 cases

Mr. Budiono v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca9

Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder (2011) ca9

Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions (2017) ca10

Anh Le v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i) — 75 cases

Anh Le v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca5

Manuel Guzman-Vazquez v. William P. Barr (2020) ca6

Miriam Gutierrez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (2018) ca6

Jose Orellana-Arias v. Jefferson B. Sessions III (2017) ca7

Jean-Louis v. Attorney General of the United States (2009) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(ii) — 9 cases

Rainey Muoka Mutua v. U.S. Attorney General (2022) ca11

D-E-B (2025) bia

E-A-S-O (2026) bia

P-A-C (2026) bia

Yanney v. Sessions (2018) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) — 127 cases

Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder (2011) ca9

Mokorya Wambura v. William Barr (2020) ca4

Manuel Guzman-Vazquez v. William P. Barr (2020) ca6

J-J-G (2020) bia

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C) — 115 cases

Gerson E. Alvarenga-Flores v. Jefferson B. Sessions III (2018) ca7

El-Moussa v. Holder (2009) ca6

Htun v. Lynch (2016) ca10

Ndrecaj v. Mukasey (2008) ca6

Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey (2008) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(a) — 2 cases

Angel Abad Solano-Chicas v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States of America, 1 (2006) ca8

Angel Solano-Chicas v. John Ashcroft (2006) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(b) — 1 case

Reina v. Sessions (2017) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(i) — 2 cases

Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(ii) — 1 case

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5) — 39 cases

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) scotus

Patel v. Garland (2022) scotus

Singh v. Gonzales (2006) ca5 “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 and Christina Pamela Falcon Bibiano v. John Ashcroft, Atto (2003) ca9

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez (2021) scotus

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A) — 7 cases

Singh v. Gonzales (2006) ca5 “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 (2009) ca9

Fan v. Gonzales (2005) ca4

Al Mutarrev v. Holder (2009) ca9

Singh v. Ashcroft (2004) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(B) — 3 cases

Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca9

Omar v. Lynch (2016) ca1

Rocha v. Gonzales (2005) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(C) — 7 cases

Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca9

Firelly E. Rios-Cano v. U.S. Atty. General (2005) ca11

Jean Martelly Brice v. U.S. Atty. General (2005) ca11

Mwinkeu v. Gonzales (2005) ca4

De Yun Li v. Atty Gen USA (2004) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) — 182 cases

Tengiz Sevoian v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (2002) ca3

Singh v. Gonzales (2006) ca5 “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 (2018) ca10

Kucana v. Mukasey (2008) ca7

Elizabeth Lona v. William Barr (2020) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A) — 107 cases

Rosillo-Puga v. Holder (2009) ca10 “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 General (2005) ca9

William v. Gonzales (2007) ca4 “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”

Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca9

Gibriel Lari v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) — 174 cases

Elizabeth Lona v. William Barr (2020) ca9

Pllumi v. Attorney General of the United States (2011) ca3

Jose Juan Martinez Barroso v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Maricela M. Fernandez, Danelia Fernandez Covarrubias v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca9

Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) — 235 cases

Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland (2021) ca5

Pllumi v. Attorney General of the United States (2011) ca3

Stanislav Iavorski v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000) ca2

Mu Ju Li v. Mukasey (2008) ca6

Lidia Ramirez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (2018) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(I) — 1 case

Singh v. Gonzales (2006) ca5 “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. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002) ca9

Salvador Azarte Celia Castellon v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Maria Isabel Gonzalez De Martinez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2004) ca9

Infanzon v. Ashcroft (2004) ca10

Syed Mahmood v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2005) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(ii) — 15 cases

Japarkulova v. Holder (2010) ca6

Lek Berishaj v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (2004) ca3

Salvador Azarte Celia Castellon v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Alibasic v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

Dong v. Gonzales (2005) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(iv) — 4 cases

Wilmer Garcia Carias v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca5

Ovalles v. Holder (2009) ca5

Pruidze v. Holder (2011) ca6

Ovalles v. Holder (2009) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(a) — 2 cases

Azararte v. Ashcroft (2005) ca9

Calleros-Alcala v. Ashcroft (2004) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(b) — 4 cases

Anis Shokri Salama Malty v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2004) ca9

Cirila Verastegui-Araujo v. Merrick Garland (2021) ca9

Victor Urquiaga v. Atty Gen USA (2010) ca3

Urquiaga v. Attorney General of the United States (2010) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(c) — 4 cases

Christian Rosales-Rivera v. Merrick B. Garland (2023) ca6

Erwin Cespedes v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2013) ca4

Cornelio Lara-Ruiz v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2015) ca4

Mohammed IK Masalmeh v. U.S. Attorney General (2015) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(i) — 2 cases

Azararte v. Ashcroft (2005) ca9

Sheraz v. Gonzales (2005) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(ii) — 1 case

Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) — 515 cases

Kucana v. Holder (2010) scotus “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…”

Sergio Lugo-Resendez v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca5

Mendiola v. Holder (2009) ca10

Ochoa v. Holder (2010) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) — 958 cases

William v. Gonzales (2007) ca4 “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. (2012) ca5

Reyes Mata v. Lynch (2015) scotus

Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008) ca2 “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.”

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C) — 3 cases

Khokhar v. Holder (2012) ca2

Ameti v. Holder (2013) ca2

Qin Fei Zheng v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)(i) — 3 cases

Sara Maria Vasquez v. U.S. Atty. Gen. (2006) ca11

Amenul Hoque v. Atty Gen USA (2012) ca3

Hoque v. Attorney General of the United States (2012) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) — 276 cases

Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008) ca2 “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 (2025) ca9

Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland (2021) ca5

Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland (2023) ca9

Igli Filja, Luljeta Filja, Endrit Filja v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C) — 362 cases

Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008) ca2 “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 (2017) ca10

Hui Zheng v. Holder (2009) ca4

Ying Liu v. Attorney General of the United States (2009) ca3

Chen v. Garland (2022) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I) — 31 cases

Toufighi v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

Hardeep Singh v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2007) ca9

Barry v. Mukasey (2008) ca6

Li Yun Lin v. Mukasey (2008) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(h) — 1 case

Khokhar v. Holder (2012) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) — 1278 cases

Rigoberto Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney General (2013) ca11

William v. Gonzales (2007) ca4 “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”

Avagyan v. Holder (2011) ca9

Melsi Garcia Nunez v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2018) ca5

Gor v. Holder (2010) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) — 1360 cases

Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008) ca2 “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 General of United States (2012) ca3

Toufighi v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

Pllumi v. Attorney General of the United States (2011) ca3

Abdifatah Gaas Qorane v. William Barr, U. S. Atty (2019) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iii) — 6 cases

Paramjit Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca9

Soriano-Mendosa v. Sessions (2019) ca10

Blanco v. Mukasey (2009) ca9

Kiang Li v. Department of Homeland Security (2007) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv) — 71 cases

William v. Gonzales (2007) ca4 “See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c). These provisions virtually mimicked the pre-existing provisions in 8 C.”

Magana-Magana v. Garland (2024) ca9

Pena-Lopez v. Garland (2022) ca5

Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi (2025) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(l) — 2 cases

Nigelarani Vakeesan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2009) ca6

Rosero v. Lynch (2015) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(n) — 1 case

Xiu Mei Wang v. Holder (2010) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(a) — 1 case

Hansa Persad v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2010) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c) — 2 cases

Mathakutha v. United States Department of Homeland Security (2009) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(i) — 7 cases

Twum v. Barr (2019) ca1

Castro-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General (2005) ca11

Hansraj v. Holder, Jr. (2012) ca10

Bo Lin v. Holder (2012) ca2

Xu v. Atty Gen USA (2008) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(ii) — 6 cases

Meksida Mnatsakanyan v. Pamela Bondi (2026) ca9

Lesmana v. Attorney General of the United States (2012) ca3

Niang Chung Shue v. Holder (2009) ca2

Qun Ying Shi v. Holder (2009) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(e)(i) — 1 case

Jun-Lan Zhang v. Holder (2011) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(i) — 5 cases

Bi Feng Liu v. Holder (2009) ca6

Chernoh Barrie v. Atty Gen USA (2010) ca3

Yang Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2010) ca7

Carlos Eduardo Cabrera-Noriega v. U.S. Attorney General (2011) ca11

Bi Feng Liu v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2009) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(ii) — 11 cases

Joel Silva v. Merrick Garland (2021) ca9

Yu Zhang v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca6

Munzer A. Zahren v. Alberto R. Gonzales (2007) ca7

Li Zhang v. Attorney General of the United States of America (2013) ca3

Inga Barysheva v. U.S. Attorney General (2018) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(iv) — 1 case

D-E-B (2025) bia

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(A)(4)(i) — 1 case

Osman Bonilla Ramirez v. Eric Holder (2011) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(iv) — 1 case

Feitosa v. Garland (2024) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(l) — 2 cases

United States v. Ronald Sentamu (2000) ca2

United States v. Ventura-Candelario (1997) nysd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(l)(A) — 15 cases

Blackman Hinds v. Holder (2015) ca1

Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont (2013) ca8

Xiu Mei Wei v. Mukasey (2008) ca10

Hamdi Ex Rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano (2010) ca6

Mena-Flores v. Holder (2015) ca10

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d) — 11 cases

United States v. Isaac Ramos (2010) ca9

United States v. Soto-Mateo (2015) ca1

United States v. Juan De La Cruz Morante (2019) txsd

United States v. Vasallo-Martinez (2009) ca9

United States v. Eliseo Lopez (2016) ca4

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d)(1) — 2 cases

Gilberto Garcia-Romo v. William P. Barr (2019) ca6

Alimi, Selman v. Ashcroft, John (2004) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d)(l) — 1 case

Selman Alimi v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (2004) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e) — 11 cases

Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Janice Brewer (2017) ca9

Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2002) ca9

Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer (2016) ca9

Ovalles v. Holder (2009) ca5

ARIZONA DREAM COALITION Et v. JANICE BREWER (2016) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) — 127 cases

Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland (2024) ca9

Maria Acelina Valencia-Fragoso v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2003) ca9

Jose Borges v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2005) ca3

Pedro Vilarde Reyes v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2004) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1)(A) — 1 case

Fatos Vasha v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2) — 32 cases

Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen (2019) ca5

Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Jurado-Delgado v. Attorney General of the United States (2009) ca3

Campos-Chaves v. Garland (2024) scotus

Qui Guan Di Zhang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)(A) — 12 cases

Jose Lopez-Vasquez v. Eric H. Holder Jr. (2013) ca9

Mohammed Subhan v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (2004) ca7

Abufayad v. Holder (2011) ca9

J.E.F.M. v. Holder (2015) wawd

Munna Godfrey v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)(B) — 7 cases

Frank Igwebuike Enwonwu v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca1

Baljinder Singh v. Attorney General United States (2021) ca3

Mozdzen v. Holder (2010) ca7

United States v. Ventura-Candelario (1997) nysd

Nouy Sok v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1999) caed

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3) — 2 cases

Leslie Ward v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2013) ca6

Calix v. Attorney General of the United States (2011) ca3

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(A) — 10 cases

Joaquin Sinotes-Cruz v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2006) ca9

Latu v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

Michael Negele v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States Thomas Ridge, Director of Homeland Security (2004) ca8

Adefemi v. Ashcroft (2003) ca11

King v. Holder (2009) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(B) — 3 cases

Vaca-Tellez, Jose M. v. Mukasey, Michael B. (2008) ca7

Lopes v. Keisler (2007) ca1

Anton Sennhauser v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2015) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(B)(i) — 1 case

Patel, Vinodkumar F. v. Gonzales, Alberto (2006) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(3)(B)(vi) — 2 cases

Conteh v. Gonzales (2006) ca1

Flores v. Gonzales (2006) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4) — 1 case

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(A) — 3 cases

Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder (2011) ca9

Cardenas v. Lynch (2016) ca9

Felix Ramos v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2013) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(A)(i) — 5 cases

Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca6

Sanchez v. Holder (2010) ca8

Garcia Maria De La Luz v. Attorney General United States (2014) ca3

Casarez v. Holder (2011) ca9

Veronica Canar Yanez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2014) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(B) — 4 cases

Rosas-Castaneda v. Holder (2011) ca9

Julio Barahona-Vallecillo v. Jefferson Sessions (2017) ca9

Sharma v. Holder (2011) ca9

Hamet Sall v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2014) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(C) — 2 cases

Hernandez v. Holder (2013) ca2

Hong Chen v. Holder (2012) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(5) — 3 cases

Belay-Gebru v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2003) ca10

Ali v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

Buquer v. City of Indianapolis (2011) insd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(5)(C) — 1 case

Martin Cardenas-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney General (2006) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6) — 7 cases

Luna v. Holder (2011) ca2

Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder (2010) ca9

Bobby Siagian v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2012) ca5

Chun Ming Zhang v. Holder (2015) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(A) — 7 cases

Mahbuber Rahman v. U.S. Atty. General (2006) ca11

Marcelino Melendez-Amaya v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2013) ca5

Ronald Soza v. U.S. Attorney General (2010) ca11

Sulam Sidhwani v. U.S. Attorney General (2006) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(B) — 4 cases

Usha Bhasin v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005) ca9

Gor v. Holder (2010) ca6

Gonzalez-Polanco v. Holder (2009) ca2

Singh v. Gonzales (2007) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C) — 13 cases

Aleksandr Yeremin v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2013) ca6

Hui Zheng v. Lynch (2015) ca2

Lenis Irene Arboleda Bohorguez v. U.S. Attorney General (2014) ca11

Vivian Lady Manzano Fernandez v. U.S. Atty. Gen. (2010) ca11

Magda Catalina Merino Barreto v. U.S. Atty. Gen. (2006) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C)(i) — 4 cases

De Martinez v. Ashcroft (2004) ca9

Nikollbibaj v. Gonzales (2007) ca6

Chen v. Ashcroft (2005) ca1

Gelana Amente v. Alberto Gonzales (2006) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C)(ii) — 2 cases

Panjwani v. Gonzales (2005) ca5

Xuan Li Zheng v. Ashcroft (2004) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(6)(C)(iv) — 1 case

Pruidze v. Holder (2011) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7) — 27 cases

Sergio Lugo-Resendez v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca5

MacArio Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca9

Luna v. Holder (2011) ca2

Yan Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2013) ca9

Jose Anaya-Aguilar v. Eric Holder (2012) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(A) — 51 cases

Perez Santana v. Holder (2013) ca1

Bi Feng Liu v. Holder (2009) ca6

Rigoberto Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney General (2013) ca11

Coyt v. Holder (2010) ca9

Sharma v. Holder (2011) ca9

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(A)(i) — 1 case

Michael Ogwude v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca5

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(B) — 9 cases

Jun Li Xiao v. U.S. Attorney General (2007) ca11

Elsa Gutierrez Quintero v. U.S. Attorney General (2008) ca11

Bin Xu v. U.S. Attorney General (2010) ca11

Juan Diego Trujillo Castro v. U.S. Atty. Gen. (2009) ca11

Singh v. Holder (2010) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C) — 14 cases

Reyes-Torres v. Holder (2011) ca9

Zheng v. Mukasey (2007) ca8

Yong Xiu Lian v. Holder (2011) ca2

Xue Hui Zhang v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

Fichera v. Sessions (2017) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(I) — 7 cases

Toufighi v. Mukasey (2008) ca9

Ndoci v. Holder (2011) ca2

Ysalas Patino-Ortiz v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2015) ca9

Shui Qim Zou v. Holder (2015) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(i) — 77 cases

Singh v. Holder (2011) ca9

Cipto Chandra v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2014) ca9

Mahamat v. Ashcroft (2005) ca10

Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales (2007) ca2

Silva-Carvalho Lopes v. Mukasey (2008) ca2

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(ii) — 104 cases

Igli Filja, Luljeta Filja, Endrit Filja v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca3

Bi Feng Liu v. Holder (2009) ca6

Bin Zhao v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2006) ca7

Sunita Patel, Kamarkant Patel, Pallavi Patel, and Kalpana Patel v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United S (2006) ca7

Ji Cheng Ni v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2013) ca7

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(iv) — 3 cases

Wenqin Sun v. Mukasey (2009) ca9

Cardenas v. Lynch (2016) ca9

Aboubakar Yari v. U.S. Attorney General (2006) ca11

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(a) — 1 case

Hansa Persad v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (2010) ca8

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(ii) — 1 case

Bi Feng Liu v. Holder (2009) ca6

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(A) — 1 case

Sabino v. Reno (1998) txsd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(B) — 1 case

Sabino v. Reno (1998) txsd

— 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) — 147 cases

Juan Monjaraz-Munoz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2003) ca9

Svitlana Denko v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2003) ca6

Maricarmen Garcia Arredondo v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca9

Herbert v. Ashcroft (2003) ca1

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.