The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, enacted as division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRAIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an administrative appellate body within the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the United States Department of Justice responsible for reviewing decisions of the U.S. immigration courts and certain actions of U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, U.S Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The BIA was established in 1940 after the Immigration and Naturalization Service was transferred from the United States Department of Labor to the Department of Justice.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca. In Aguirre-Aguirre, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.
Richard Anthony Paez is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of January 19, 2023, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.
In the United States, removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under federal immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) is a non-profit legal services organization in Washington state. NWIRP's mission is to promote justice by defending and advancing the rights of immigrants through direct legal services, systemic advocacy, and community education.
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court invalidated the BIA's "comparable-grounds rule" as arbitrary and capricious, holding that it had no rational relation to the merits of an alien's claim for remaining in the United States, nor to the policy and purposes of the immigration laws.
Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional.
Reinstatement of removal refers to an immigration enforcement procedure in the United States in which a previously deported immigrant can be again deported for subsequent illegal entries with no required judicial review except in very limited circumstances.
Boika v. Holder, 727 F.3d 735, is a precedent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing an alien's motion to reopen after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the convention against torture. Judge David F. Hamilton wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel which granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.
Voluntary departure in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States is a legal remedy available to certain aliens who have been placed in removal proceedings by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or the now Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case of the United States Supreme Court, in which the justices considered the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration. The case attracted attention from civil liberties groups and immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Lawyers Guild.
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the jurisdiction of federal courts over immigration appeals.
Campos-Chaves v. Garland was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case asks whether the government may comply with its obligations under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) and (2) when it provides an initial notice to appear with a date and location "to be determined" and a subsequent notice with that information included.
Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal courts have the jurisdiction to review the determinations of immigration judges as a mixed question of law.
