8 U.S.C. § 1252a
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Lazaro Garcia v. Larry F. Taylor, Warden Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 40 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 1994).
Lazaro Garcia v. Larry F. Taylor, Warden Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 40 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 1994). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(l). He brought a mandamus action in which he claimed that the Immigration & Naturalization Service was not taking steps to give him the expedited hearing that the law promised (or threatened).”
United States v. Phommachanh, 91 F.3d 1383 (10th Cir. 1996). “Judicial Deportation Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) As the Fourth Circuit recognized, by enacting 8 U.”
United States v. Gabriel Jesus Marin-Castaneda, Gabriel Jesus Marin Castaneda, 134 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 1998). “This provision has since been redesignated as 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l). 3 . Both parties use the citation " 8 U.”
Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994). “This is particularly true of aliens whose drug offenses constitute aggravated felonies under the Act; indeed, aliens convicted of aggravated felonies are subject to stricter procedures in general.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FLORES-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant, 106 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir. 1997). “This section was redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) by Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.”
Leader v. Blackman, 744 F. Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). “8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c) (1988). Finally, the statute’s requirement of expedited deportation proceedings for persons convicted of aggravated felonies is insufficient to save the statute.”
Oneil Patrick Lovell v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 52 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 1995). “The expedited deportation requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252a is not a per se prohibition against any venue change.”
United States v. Shaw Yan Xiang, 77 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 1996). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). But even in that limited instance, Congress included the requirement that the Attorney General must request the defendant’s deportation and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization must concur.”
Davis v. Weiss, 749 F. Supp. 47 (D. Conn. 1990). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c). Therefore, the Court finds that the protections afforded by Salerno are inapplicable here.”
Esperanza Burgos-Abril v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 58 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 1995). “§ 1252a(a)(l). “Such proceedings shall be conducted in conformity with section 1252 of this title (except as otherwise provided in this section).”
United States v. Oboh, 92 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 1996). “7 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) (1994). As a result of section 1252a(d), the Executive Branch can now effectuate the deportation of a defendant “subject to deportation” through a judicial rather than an administrative proceeding if the government meets certain procedural requirements.”
State v. Baeza, 496 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c). Therefore, the first inquiry is *128 whether Baeza's conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, contrary to sec.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(a)(1) — 1 case
Luviano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 235 (BIA 1996).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(a)(3)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Ramnath, 958 F. Supp. 99 (E.D.N.Y 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(a)(3)(B) — 3 cases
United States v. Ramnath, 958 F. Supp. 99 (E.D.N.Y 1997).
Rodney v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 462 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Conn. 2006).
Murray v. Atty Genl of MD (4th Cir. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(a)(l) — 2 cases
Esperanza Burgos-Abril v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 58 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 1995). “§ 1252a(a)(l). “Such proceedings shall be conducted in conformity with section 1252 of this title (except as otherwise provided in this section).”
United States v. Lopez, 940 F. Supp. 920 (E.D. Va. 1996).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(b) — 1 case
United States v. Luis Hernandez-Vermudez, AKA John Doe, AKA Luis Hernandez Vermudez, AKA Luis Hernandez-Bermudez, Aka, Luis Eduardo Hernandez, 356 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c) — 7 cases
State v. Baeza, 496 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c). Therefore, the first inquiry is *128 whether Baeza's conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, contrary to sec.”
Davis v. Weiss, 749 F. Supp. 47 (D. Conn. 1990). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c). Therefore, the Court finds that the protections afforded by Salerno are inapplicable here.”
Leader v. Blackman, 744 F. Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). “8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c) (1988). Finally, the statute’s requirement of expedited deportation proceedings for persons convicted of aggravated felonies is insufficient to save the statute.”
United States v. Wali Ahmed Chowdhury, 169 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 1999).
Paxton v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 745 F. Supp. 1261 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) — 3 cases
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FLORES-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant, 106 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir. 1997). “This section was redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) by Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.”
United States v. Jose Baltazar Rodriguez-Lopez, 198 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Romeo, 122 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l) — 3 cases
United States v. Gabriel Jesus Marin-Castaneda, Gabriel Jesus Marin Castaneda, 134 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 1998). “This provision has since been redesignated as 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l). 3 . Both parties use the citation " 8 U.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Meza AISPURO, Defendant-Appellant, 127 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Gomez, 135 F. App'x 905 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) — 13 cases
United States v. Phommachanh, 91 F.3d 1383 (10th Cir. 1996). “Judicial Deportation Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) As the Fourth Circuit recognized, by enacting 8 U.”
Leader v. Blackman, 744 F. Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). “8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c) (1988). Finally, the statute’s requirement of expedited deportation proceedings for persons convicted of aggravated felonies is insufficient to save the statute.”
United States v. Shaw Yan Xiang, 77 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 1996). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). But even in that limited instance, Congress included the requirement that the Attorney General must request the defendant’s deportation and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization must concur.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FLORES-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant, 106 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir. 1997). “This section was redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) by Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.”
Paxton v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 745 F. Supp. 1261 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(1) — 4 cases
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FLORES-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant, 106 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir. 1997). “This section was redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) by Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.”
United States v. Jose Baltazar Rodriguez-Lopez, 198 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Oboh, 65 F.3d 900 (11th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Oboh, 65 F.3d 900 (11th Cir. 1995).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(2) — 5 cases
United States v. Shaw Yan Xiang, 77 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 1996). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). But even in that limited instance, Congress included the requirement that the Attorney General must request the defendant’s deportation and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization must concur.”
United States v. Oboh, 92 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 1996). “7 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) (1994). As a result of section 1252a(d), the Executive Branch can now effectuate the deportation of a defendant “subject to deportation” through a judicial rather than an administrative proceeding if the government meets certain procedural requirements.”
A-a, 20 I. & N. Dec. 492 (Md. 1992).
United States v. Oboh, 65 F.3d 900 (11th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Xiang (4th Cir. 1996).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(2)(B) — 2 cases
United States v. Shaw Yan Xiang, 77 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 1996). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). But even in that limited instance, Congress included the requirement that the Attorney General must request the defendant’s deportation and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization must concur.”
United States v. Xiang (4th Cir. 1996).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(3) — 2 cases
United States v. Oboh, 92 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 1996). “7 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) (1994). As a result of section 1252a(d), the Executive Branch can now effectuate the deportation of a defendant “subject to deportation” through a judicial rather than an administrative proceeding if the government meets certain procedural requirements.”
United States v. Oboh, 65 F.3d 900 (11th Cir. 1995).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(l) — 9 cases
Lazaro Garcia v. Larry F. Taylor, Warden Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 40 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 1994). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(l). He brought a mandamus action in which he claimed that the Immigration & Naturalization Service was not taking steps to give him the expedited hearing that the law promised (or threatened).”
Rodolfo Hernandez-Avalos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 50 F.3d 842 (10th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Gabriel Jesus Marin-Castaneda, Gabriel Jesus Marin Castaneda, 134 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 1998). “This provision has since been redesignated as 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l). 3 . Both parties use the citation " 8 U.”
United States v. Phommachanh, 91 F.3d 1383 (10th Cir. 1996). “Judicial Deportation Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d) As the Fourth Circuit recognized, by enacting 8 U.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FLORES-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant, 106 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir. 1997). “This section was redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(1) by Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(e) — 1 case
Morrobel v. Thornburgh, 744 F. Supp. 725 (E.D. Va. 1990).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(e)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Romeo, 122 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(e)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Gabriel Jesus Marin-Castaneda, Gabriel Jesus Marin Castaneda, 134 F.3d 551 (3rd Cir. 1998). “This provision has since been redesignated as 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l). 3 . Both parties use the citation " 8 U.”
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.