Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) – Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.
There is an estimated backlog of 3.6m cases in US immigration courts, and migrants often have to wait years. Many have been left wondering whether those cases will still be heard.
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a non-citizen seeking cancellation of an administrative removal order does not meet the statutory burden of proving their eligibility for cancellation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [1] unless they can show that a past criminal conviction was not disqualifying, even ...
The CDC's policy under Title 42 was unenforceable from November 15, 2022, when D.C. federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the policy is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, [8] until December 19 when the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, issued a temporary hold on Sullivan's ruling, [9] followed by the full ...
Conservative states pushing to keep limits on asylum-seekers put in place during the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort before the ...
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the ...
Currently there are 3.6 million cases pending before immigration judges, the largest number of such cases in the history of the American immigration system. That is a 44% increase from the 2.5 ...
Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), [1] a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague.