8 U.S.C. § 1362
Right to counsel
In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such removal proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 414
cases (35 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008).
Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008). “8 (a)21 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1362 ,22 1225(c)(3),23 and 1225(b)(1)(B)(iv).”
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982). “Finally, Plasencia contends that she was allowed to waive her right to representation, § 292, 8 U. S. C. § 1362 , [8] without a full understanding of the right or of the consequences of waiving it.”
Ardestani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 502 U.S. 129 (1991). “We thus need not reach the Court of Appeals' alternative holding that the EAJA's fee-shifting provisions are precluded by § 292 of the INA, 8 U. S. C. § 1362 , which provides that an individual in an administrative deportation proceeding may be represented by counsel "at no…”
C.J.L.G., a Juv. Male v. Jefferson Sessions, 880 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). “OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: “The right to counsel in immigration proceedings is rooted in the Due Process Clause [of the Fifth Amendment] and codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1362 and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) [of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.”
E.O.H.C. v. Sec'y United States Depart, 950 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 2020). “V (Due Pro- cess Clause); 8 U.S.C. § 1362 . Third, they argued that returning them to Mexico would vi- olate the United States’s treaty obligations.”
Aguilar v. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf't Div. of the Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “” 8 U.S.C. § 1362 . In this instance, the petitioners claim that their detention and subsequent transfer by the government infringed their rights to counsel by barring their access to lawyers, interfering with preexisting attorney-client relationships, and making it difficult to…”
Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2007). “2004) (quotations and citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (giving persons in removal proceedings "the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by .”
United States v. Ricardo Ahumada-Aguilar, AKA Ricardo Ahumada AKA Ricardo Aguilar AKA Ricardo Alfonso Hernandez, 295 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2002). “Congress expressly provided that an alien has the right to representation by counsel at no expense to the Government in 8 U.S.C. § 1362 . “Failure to accord an alien this right may, in the light of the entire administrative record, be an abuse of discretion, requiring remand.”
Taldybek Usubakunov v. Merrick Garland, 16 F.4th 1299 (9th Cir. 2021). “Rooted in the Due Process Clause and codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1362 and § 1229a(b)(4)(A), noncitizens have the right to counsel in removal proceedings, albeit not the right to counsel paid for by the government.”
Leslie v. Attorney Gen. of US, 611 F.3d 171 (3rd Cir. 2010). “10 (a)(2)-(3), deprived him both of his constitutional right to due process and his statutory right to counsel under 8 U.S.C. § 1362 . Leslie’s appeal presents both a question of law — whether an IJ’s failure to comply with 8 C.”
Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012). “We conclude that the Petitioner’s right to be represented in the proceedings by retained counsel, established under 8 U.S.C. § 1362 and related regulations, was violated.”
Delphine Arrey v. William Barr, 916 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2019). “8 U.S.C. § 1362 (codifying the right to counsel in immigration proceedings); Gomez-Velazco v.”
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.