The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of all causes, civil and criminal, brought by the United States that arise under the provisions of this subchapter. It shall be the duty of the United States attorney of the proper district to prosecute every such suit when brought by the United States. Notwithstanding any other law, such prosecutions or suits may be instituted at any place in the United States at which the violation may occur or at which the person charged with a violation under section 1325 or 1326 of this title may be apprehended. No suit or proceeding for a violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter shall be settled, compromised, or discontinued without the consent of the court in which it is pending and any such settlement, compromise, or discontinuance shall be entered of record with the reasons therefor. Nothing in this section shall be construed as providing jurisdiction for suits against the United States or its agencies or officers.
Notes of Decisions
Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999).
· cites it 4× “§ 1331 , or the general jurisdictional provision of the INA, see 8 U. S. C. § 1329 . [4] Whether we must delve further into the details of this issue depends upon whether, after the enactment of IIRIRA, § 1105a continues to apply to this case.”
Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minnesota 1999).
· cites it 10× “8 U.S.C. § 1329 Defendants argue that even if judicial review is not precluded by 8 U.”
Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc., 24 F.4th 804 (2d Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “The Notes mention other statutes— 8 U.S.C. § 1329 and 31 U.S.C. § 3730—and the text of those statutes leaves no doubt that, when the statutes apply, voluntary dismissals with or without prejudice require court approval before taking effect.”
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).
“Nor are we aided by the Advisory Committee’s notes, which simply state that the language “any applicable federal statute” serves to “preserve” provisions in “such statutes as” 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (immigration violations) and 31 U.”
Soroa-Gonzales v. Civiletti, 515 F. Supp. 1049 (N.D. Ga. 1981).
· cites it 8× “Petitioner argues that at least three general grants of jurisdiction permit this Court to exercise its power over this controversy: 8 U.S.C. § 1329 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ; and 28 U.”
Saleh v. Ridge, 367 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
· cites it 3× “§ 702 , a jurisdictional provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1329 , in the Court’s capacity to issue a writ of mandamus to compel agency action pursuant to 28 U.”
United States v. Arturo Hernandez, 189 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 4× “8 U.S.C. § 1329 . Also relevant is the venue statute for continuing offenses, which provides that “any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in…”
Khanom v. Kerry, 37 F. Supp. 3d 567 (E.D.N.Y 2014).
· cites it 4× “and 8 U.S.C. § 1329 . (Compl. ¶ 13). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.”
Fuentes-Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98 (Colo. 2017).
· cites it 3× “§ 1324 (c) permits local law enforcement officers to arrest those who violate these provisions of federal 12 law, but under 8 U.S.C. § 1329 , federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes and to interpret the boundaries of the federal statute.”
Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 539 F. Supp. 925 (N.D. Ga. 1982).
· cites it 10× “§ 1361 (mandamus jurisdiction), 20 and 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (jurisdiction *934 over cases arising under Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 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.