Citation network
ins Vs. Doherty
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 15, 1992
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 314 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Immigration and Naturalization Service V. DohertySearch
-
legal standard in overturning the BIA's finding that Doherty had produced new material evidence and that, under INS v. AbuduSearch
-
reopening, and the authority for such motions derives solely from regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. INS v. Rios-PinedaSearch
-
conditions under which motions should be granted. Thus, the granting of a motion to reopen is discretionary, INS v. PhinpathyaSearch
-
SDNY 1984). The attempts of the United States to attack this conclusion collaterally were rebuffed. United States v. DohertySearch
-
has been confined since his arrest by the INS, has also twice unsuccessfully filed for habeas corpus relief. Doherty v. MeeseSearch
-
Doherty v. ThornburghSearch
-
his deportation proceedings. It affirmed the Meese order, but by a divided vote reversed the Thornburgh order. Doherty v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for reopening, that respondent was not entitled to the ultimate relief requested. Citing this Court's decision in INS v. AbuduSearch
-
and the authority for such motions derives solely from regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. INS v. RiosSearch
-
The granting of a motion to reopen is thus discretionary, INS v. PhinpathyaSearch
-
same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. AbuduSearch
-
every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States. See INS v. Rios-PinedaSearch
-
He is the final administrative authority in construing the regulations, and in deciding questions under them. See INS v. JongSearch
-
cases, also be an adequate explanation for failure to pursue a claim at an earlier proceeding. As we explained in INS v. AbuduSearch
-
specified by the AP A do not apply to hearings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), see Marcello v. BondsSearch
-
U. S. 302 (1955), the judicial review provisions do, see Shaughnessy v. PedreiroSearch
-
statements in cases such as INS v. Rios-PinedaSearch
-
Supp. II) (emphasis added). The imperative language of this provision is not an accident. As we recognized in INS v. Cardoza-FonsecaSearch
-
INS v. StevieSearch
-
to administer discretionary forms of relief such as asylum and suspension of deportation. Our decision in INS v. AbuduSearch
-
could not deny reopening here-as he could in Abudu, Rios-Pineda, and the other case cited by the Court, INS v. PhinpathyaSearch
-
but only to be discerned as the reasonable import 3 THE CHIEF JUSTICE seeks to enlist the support of INS v. AbuduSearch
-
as to the withholding claim only because it had decided that reopening was required for the asylum request. Abudu v. INSSearch
-
of that interpretation to produce the automatic cutoff of a statutorily conferred right would be lawful. Cf. NLRB v. BellSearch
-
Syllabus Immigration and Naturalization Service V. DohertySearch
-
the Attorney General. INS v. Rios-PinedaSearch
-
United States v. DohertySearch
-
Doherty v. MeeseSearch
-
Doherty v. UnitedSearch
-
the Attorney General. INS v. RiosSearch
-
the United States. See INS v. Rios-PinedaSearch
-
See INS v. JongSearch
-
Marcello v. BondsSearch
-
the Court, INS v. PhinpathyaSearch
-
of INS v. AbuduSearch
-
Abudu v. INSSearch
-
Cf. NLRB v. BellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial