8 U.S.C. § 1252b
Repealed. Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 308(b)(6), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–615
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 505
cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010).
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010). “§1103 (a), but also a provision of Subchapter II, 8 U. S. C. §1252b (1994 ed.). See 61 Fed.”
Sanchez v. Holder, 627 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2010). “Sanchez argued that because he did not receive the hearing notice, he was entitled to reopening under § 242B(c)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1996). He further asserted that he was not at fault for failing to receive the notice…”
Jose Ramos-Portillo v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 919 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2019). “Under the former § 1252b, an immigration court could order an alien who failed to attend his deportation hearing to be deported in absentia , if the government established "by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien…”
Miguel Francisco Castro Barrios v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 399 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2005). “The IIRIRA repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1252b and replaced it with a new voluntary departure provision codified at 8 U.”
Tigran Ekimian Rouzan Nagapetian Avetis Hekimian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). “8 U.S.C. § 1252b was repealed by IIRIRA.”
Normita Santo Domingo Fajardo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 300 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2002). “23 apply the single-motion limitation to motions to rescind an in ab-sentia order of removal (pursuant to INA § 240(b)(5), 8 U.”
Ranjit Singh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Servs., 295 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002). “Indeed, the INS commendably conceded at oral argument that apart from a few formalities that needed to be carried out, if the hearing had been held, Singh would not have been ordered deported. The IJ, however, denied Singh’s motion to reopen and rescind the deportation order.”
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). “They made no effort to seek an extension of the departure date, and by December 2,1994, when their request to reopen was heard, the departure date had come and gone, but they were still here.”
Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003). “1994) (applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252b); see also, e.g., Hernandez-Vivas v.”
Carlos Humberto Ordonez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003). “1998) (noting that “the five year exclusion set forth in subsection (e) [of 8 U.S.C. § 1252b] is not effective unless the alien was given the proper notice under subsection (a)(2) as well as oral notice”).”
Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1999). “5 (a) (1999); INA § 242B(a)(2), (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (c)(1) (1994). This method of notification does not violate an alien’s due process rights.”
Ruben Lopez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 184 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). “8 U.S.C. § 1252b was repealed by IIRIRA, § 308(b)(6), Pub.”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(5)(C) — 1 case
Baig v. Ashcroft, 113 F. App'x 575 (5th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a) — 7 cases
Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024).
M-s, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998).
Jorge Olivas-Barraza v. Matthew Whitaker (9th Cir. 2018).
Gabriela Vera Vasquez v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2019).
Krishna Govind Lar-Patel v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2019).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1) — 36 cases
United States v. Juan Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022).
Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008).
Jose Ramos-Portillo v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 919 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2019). “Under the former § 1252b, an immigration court could order an alien who failed to attend his deportation hearing to be deported in absentia , if the government established "by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien…”
M-r-a, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665 (BIA 2008).
Jiang v. Garland, 18 F.4th 730 (2d Cir. 2021).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(2)(1995) — 1 case
Centeno v. Gonzales, 227 F. App'x 551 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(D) — 1 case
Ran Choeum v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 129 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(E) — 1 case
Madrigal, 21 I. & N. Dec. 323 (BIA 1996).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(F) — 7 cases
Youssef Adib Farhoud v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 122 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 1997).
Yasmeen Manjiyani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 324 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2003).
Urvashi Patel v. Jefferson Sessions, III (6th Cir. 2018).
Ana Ayala-Cantillo v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
Jose Cerrito-Escobar v. Merrick B. Garland (6th Cir. 2021).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(F)(i) — 3 cases
Jose Ramos-Portillo v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 919 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2019). “Under the former § 1252b, an immigration court could order an alien who failed to attend his deportation hearing to be deported in absentia , if the government established "by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien…”
Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019).
Melida Luna-Garcia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 924 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2019).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(F)(ii) — 6 cases
Sanchez v. Holder, 627 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2010). “Sanchez argued that because he did not receive the hearing notice, he was entitled to reopening under § 242B(c)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1996). He further asserted that he was not at fault for failing to receive the notice…”
Nidia Del Rosario Urbina-osejo, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 124 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997).
Arrozal v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 159 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1998).
Urvashi Patel v. Jefferson Sessions, III (6th Cir. 2018).
Zainabu Kamara v. INS (8th Cir. 1998).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1)(F)(iii) — 1 case
Villalba, 21 I. & N. Dec. 842 (BIA 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1994) — 1 case
Celio Abarca-Orellana v. Eric Holder, Jr., 539 F. App'x 588 (5th Cir. 2013).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) — 61 cases
Sanchez v. Holder, 627 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2010). “Sanchez argued that because he did not receive the hearing notice, he was entitled to reopening under § 242B(c)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1996). He further asserted that he was not at fault for failing to receive the notice…”
Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1999). “5 (a) (1999); INA § 242B(a)(2), (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (c)(1) (1994). This method of notification does not violate an alien’s due process rights.”
Juan Ojeda-Calderon v. Eric Holder, Jr., 726 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2013).
Singh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 213 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000).
Yasmeen Manjiyani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 324 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(1993) — 1 case
United States v. El Shami, 434 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(1994) — 1 case
Singh-Kaur v. Gonzales, 207 F. App'x 845 (9th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(1996) — 1 case
Qing Hai Lin v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 197 F. App'x 31 (2d Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A) — 53 cases
Winston Gutierrez-Alm v. Merrick Garland, 62 F.4th 1186 (9th Cir. 2023).
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).
Regina Salta v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 314 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2002).
Cornel Viorel Scorteanu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 339 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2003).
Edson Silva-Carvalho Lopes v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 468 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A)(i) — 6 cases
Maradia v. Garland, 18 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2021).
Maria Reyes Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions, III (5th Cir. 2018).
Luisa Chavajay-Hernandez v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2019).
Noe Carrias-Mayorga v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2019).
Ricardo Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Robert Wilkinson (9th Cir. 2021).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Simtion, Raducu v. Gonzales, Alberto, 233 F. App'x 578 (7th Cir. 2007).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(B) — 4 cases
Armen Margaryan v. Loretta E. Lynch, 643 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2016).
Shaileshkumar Patel v. Attorney Gen. United States (3rd Cir. 2018).
Gayatriben Patel v. Attorney Gen. United States (3rd Cir. 2018).
Martin Sanchez-Delgadillo v. Eric Holder, Jr., 475 F. App'x 257 (9th Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(D) — 2 cases
Pilar Sandoval Reynoso v. Merrick B. Garland (7th Cir. 2024).
Pilar Sandoval Reynoso v. Merrick B. Garland, 108 F.4th 919 (7th Cir. 2024).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(3) — 7 cases
Arcenio Zarate-Alcantara v. Eric Holder, Jr., 447 F. App'x 767 (9th Cir. 2011).
Makhan Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr., 446 F. App'x 721 (5th Cir. 2011).
Fazul v. Loretta E. Lynch, 611 F. App'x 450 (9th Cir. 2015).
Bihola v. Ashcroft, 64 F. App'x 330 (3rd Cir. 2003).
Reyes-Lorenzo v. Gonzales, 140 F. App'x 735 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(3)(A) — 5 cases
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
Juan Ojeda-Calderon v. Eric Holder, Jr., 726 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2013).
Dharmegh Hashmukhbmai-Patel v. Jefferson Sessions, 698 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2017).
Edy Guerrero v. Eric Holder, Jr., 597 F. App'x 950 (9th Cir. 2015).
Ketbang, Arn v. Gonzales, Alberto, 165 F. App'x 469 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(4) — 1 case
Yasmeen Manjiyani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 324 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l) — 26 cases
Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rigoberto Chaidez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 486 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2007).
Salustia Cortez-Felipe v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 245 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2001).
Aurelian Dobrota v. Iimmigration & Naturalization Serv., 311 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002).
Walid Aly Abola Ghounem v. John Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l)(F) — 8 cases
Aurelian Dobrota v. Iimmigration & Naturalization Serv., 311 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002).
Mohammed Simon Lahmidi, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 149 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998).
Youssef Adib Farhoud, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 114 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1997).
Alvarez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 236 F. App'x 260 (9th Cir. 2007).
Dharmegh Hashmukhbmai-Patel v. Jefferson Sessions, 698 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2017).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l)(F)(i) — 2 cases
Nidia Del Rosario Urbina-osejo, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 124 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997).
Palacios-Umana v. Gonzales, 163 F. App'x 257 (5th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l)(F)(ii) — 4 cases
Yasmeen Manjiyani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 324 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2003).
Zainabu Kamara v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 149 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1998).
Javier Sequeira-solano, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 104 F.3d 278 (9th Cir. 1997).
Ketbang, Arn v. Gonzales, Alberto, 165 F. App'x 469 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(b) — 1 case
Mentor v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 834 F. Supp. 133 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(b)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Loaisiga, 104 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c) — 13 cases
Aurelian Dobrota v. Iimmigration & Naturalization Serv., 311 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002).
Vadim Timchenko v. Eric Holder, Jr., 485 F. App'x 813 (6th Cir. 2012).
Le, 22 I. & N. Dec. 113 (BIA 1998).
S-a, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1050 (BIA 1997).
United States v. Perez-Valdera, 899 F. Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1) — 33 cases
Sanchez v. Holder, 627 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2010). “Sanchez argued that because he did not receive the hearing notice, he was entitled to reopening under § 242B(c)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1996). He further asserted that he was not at fault for failing to receive the notice…”
M-r-a, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665 (BIA 2008).
Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024).
Youssef Adib Farhoud v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 122 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 1997).
Ponce-hernandez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 784 (BIA 1999).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1)(1995) — 1 case
Edgar Villanueva v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1994) — 1 case
B-a-s, 22 I. & N. Dec. 57 (BIA 1998).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(2) — 9 cases
Jose Ramos-Portillo v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 919 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2019). “Under the former § 1252b, an immigration court could order an alien who failed to attend his deportation hearing to be deported in absentia , if the government established "by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien…”
Peralta-Cabrera v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2007).
Elmer Isaac Avalos-Cieza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 449 F. App'x 898 (11th Cir. 2011).
Ana Ayala-Cantillo v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
Palacios-Umana v. Gonzales, 163 F. App'x 257 (5th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3) — 77 cases
Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008).
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010). “§1103 (a), but also a provision of Subchapter II, 8 U. S. C. §1252b (1994 ed.). See 61 Fed.”
M-s, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998).
Cornel Viorel Scorteanu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 339 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2003).
Song Jin Wu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 436 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(1994) — 3 cases
Akhtar v. Reno, 123 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Singh v. Mukasey, 319 F. App'x 499 (9th Cir. 2009).
Singh v. Mukasey, 319 F. App'x 499 (9th Cir. 2009).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) — 77 cases
Ranjit Singh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Servs., 295 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002). “Indeed, the INS commendably conceded at oral argument that apart from a few formalities that needed to be carried out, if the hearing had been held, Singh would not have been ordered deported. The IJ, however, denied Singh’s motion to reopen and rescind the deportation order.”
Syed Mahmood v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 427 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir. 2005).
Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1999). “5 (a) (1999); INA § 242B(a)(2), (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (c)(1) (1994). This method of notification does not violate an alien’s due process rights.”
Tigran Ekimian Rouzan Nagapetian Avetis Hekimian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). “8 U.S.C. § 1252b was repealed by IIRIRA.”
Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(B) — 60 cases
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2011).
Sanchez v. Holder, 627 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2010). “Sanchez argued that because he did not receive the hearing notice, he was entitled to reopening under § 242B(c)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1996). He further asserted that he was not at fault for failing to receive the notice…”
Peralta-Cabrera v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2007).
Rosmery Andia Amilcar E. Torrez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 359 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004).
Juan Ojeda-Calderon v. Eric Holder, Jr., 726 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2013).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(a) — 1 case
Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1999).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(b) — 1 case
Tamayac v. Garland (5th Cir. 2022).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(4) — 9 cases
Natalia Nazarova v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 171 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 1999).
Nistor Ursachi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 296 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2002).
Porfirio Romero-Morales v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 25 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1994).
Eltayeb v. Ingham, 950 F. Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Patel v. Holder, 652 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(4)(1994) — 1 case
United States v. Roderick Outram, 445 F. App'x 509 (3rd Cir. 2011).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(l) — 32 cases
Rigoberto Chaidez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 486 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2007).
Vikesh Datt SHARMA; Vijanti Devi Sharma, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 89 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 1996).
Aurelian Dobrota v. Iimmigration & Naturalization Serv., 311 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002).
Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1999). “5 (a) (1999); INA § 242B(a)(2), (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2), (c)(1) (1994). This method of notification does not violate an alien’s due process rights.”
Ana Marie Kurfees v. U. S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 275 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2001).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(d) — 1 case
Stone v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 514 U.S. 386 (1995).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e) — 9 cases
Carlos Humberto Ordonez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003). “1998) (noting that “the five year exclusion set forth in subsection (e) [of 8 U.S.C. § 1252b] is not effective unless the alien was given the proper notice under subsection (a)(2) as well as oral notice”).”
Ruben Lopez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 184 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). “8 U.S.C. § 1252b was repealed by IIRIRA, § 308(b)(6), Pub.”
S-m-j, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 1997).
Miguel Francisco Castro Barrios v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 399 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2005). “The IIRIRA repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1252b and replaced it with a new voluntary departure provision codified at 8 U.”
Mohammed Simon Lahmidi, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 149 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) — 8 cases
Miguel Angel Leal-Rodriguez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 990 F.2d 939 (7th Cir. 1993).
Monges, 25 I. & N. Dec. 246 (BIA 2010).
Simtion, Raducu v. Gonzales, Alberto, 233 F. App'x 578 (7th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Eric Romero-Lobato (9th Cir. 2023).
Julio Araujo-Quinonez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 473 F. App'x 672 (9th Cir. 2012).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2) — 17 cases
Carlos Humberto Ordonez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003). “1998) (noting that “the five year exclusion set forth in subsection (e) [of 8 U.S.C. § 1252b] is not effective unless the alien was given the proper notice under subsection (a)(2) as well as oral notice”).”
H-a, 22 I. & N. Dec. 728 (BIA 2002).
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). “They made no effort to seek an extension of the departure date, and by December 2,1994, when their request to reopen was heard, the departure date had come and gone, but they were still here.”
Luis Enrique Varela v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 204 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2000).
Sandra Barker v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 382 F.3d 313 (3rd Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2)(A) — 49 cases
Miguel Francisco Castro Barrios v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 399 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2005). “The IIRIRA repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1252b and replaced it with a new voluntary departure provision codified at 8 U.”
Salvador Azarte Celia Castellon v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2005).
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). “They made no effort to seek an extension of the departure date, and by December 2,1994, when their request to reopen was heard, the departure date had come and gone, but they were still here.”
Edith Stewart v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 181 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1999).
Olga Magala v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 434 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2)(B) — 5 cases
Maria Isabel Gonzalez De Martinez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 374 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2004).
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). “They made no effort to seek an extension of the departure date, and by December 2,1994, when their request to reopen was heard, the departure date had come and gone, but they were still here.”
Martinez v. Ashcroft, 94 F. App'x 451 (9th Cir. 2004).
Thomas v. Gonzales, 143 F. App'x 846 (9th Cir. 2005).
Sbeih v. Exec. Off. of Immigr. Review, 982 F. Supp. 596 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2)(a)(1995) — 1 case
Velezmoro v. Ashcroft, 120 F. App'x 185 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(3) — 3 cases
Powell, 21 I. & N. Dec. 81 (BIA 1995).
Patel v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 394 F. App'x 941 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Zarate-Alcantara v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 63 F. App'x 1000 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(3)(A) — 5 cases
Normita Santo Domingo Fajardo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 300 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2002). “23 apply the single-motion limitation to motions to rescind an in ab-sentia order of removal (pursuant to INA § 240(b)(5), 8 U.”
Jobe v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 238 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2001).
Jose Flores-Chavez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004).
Loloy-Ocampo v. Ashcroft, 114 F. App'x 309 (9th Cir. 2004).
Polyakov v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 297 F. App'x 844 (11th Cir. 2008).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(3)(B) — 4 cases
Rosmery Andia Amilcar E. Torrez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 359 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004).
Zainabu Kamara v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 149 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1998).
Edgar Jose Rodriguez-Cuate v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney Gen., 1, 444 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2006).
Lastimoza v. Gonzales, 156 F. App'x 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(5) — 7 cases
Song Jin Wu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 436 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2006).
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). “They made no effort to seek an extension of the departure date, and by December 2,1994, when their request to reopen was heard, the departure date had come and gone, but they were still here.”
Mardones v. McElroy, 197 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1999).
United States Ex Rel. Kovalev v. Ashcroft, 223 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
Games-Andino v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 66 F. App'x 702 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(5)(C) — 3 cases
Miguel Francisco Castro Barrios v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 399 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2005). “The IIRIRA repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1252b and replaced it with a new voluntary departure provision codified at 8 U.”
Mardones v. McElroy, 197 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1999).
Castro Barrios v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2005).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(l) — 12 cases
Song Jin Wu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 436 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2006).
Carolina Arrieta, Petitioner, v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Respondent, 117 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1997).
Nistor Ursachi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 296 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2002).
Zhao Quan Chen v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 85 F. App'x 223 (2d Cir. 2003).
Edgar Jose Rodriguez-Cuate v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney Gen., 1, 444 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2006).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(f) — 4 cases
De Los Santos Melgar v. Atty Gen USA, 100 F. App'x 82 (3rd Cir. 2004).
Jin Can Gao v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 421 F. App'x 930 (11th Cir. 2011).
Rodriguez-Roman v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 34 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2002).
Buquez v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 394 F. App'x 932 (3rd Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(f)(1) — 5 cases
Santana Gonzalez v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 506 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2007).
Emilio Monroy v. United States Attorney Gen., 390 F. App'x 939 (11th Cir. 2010).
Santana-Gonzalez v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2007).
Santana-Gonzalez v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2007).
Walid A. A. Ghounem v. John Ashcroft (8th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(f)(2) — 40 cases
Tigran Ekimian Rouzan Nagapetian Avetis Hekimian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). “8 U.S.C. § 1252b was repealed by IIRIRA.”
Ranjit Singh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Servs., 295 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002). “Indeed, the INS commendably conceded at oral argument that apart from a few formalities that needed to be carried out, if the hearing had been held, Singh would not have been ordered deported. The IJ, however, denied Singh’s motion to reopen and rescind the deportation order.”
Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003). “1994) (applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252b); see also, e.g., Hernandez-Vivas v.”
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). “They made no effort to seek an extension of the departure date, and by December 2,1994, when their request to reopen was heard, the departure date had come and gone, but they were still here.”
Vukmirovic v. Holder, 621 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(f)(2)(1994) — 2 cases
J-p, 22 I. & N. Dec. 33 (BIA 1998).
B-a-s, 22 I. & N. Dec. 57 (BIA 1998).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(f)(l) — 1 case
Walid Aly Abola Ghounem v. John Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2004).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(i)(2) — 1 case
Normita Santo Domingo Fajardo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 300 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2002). “23 apply the single-motion limitation to motions to rescind an in ab-sentia order of removal (pursuant to INA § 240(b)(5), 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.