The court distinguished Lolong v. Gonzales and found that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the IJ’s decision to terminate proceedings resulted in no final order of removal. (Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 9/2/10)
Tags:Brian D. LernerFinal Order of RemovalImmigration AttorneyImmigration JudgesImmigration LawyerLaw Offices of Brian D. LernerPetition for Review
Home » Immigration Updates » IJ’s decision to terminate proceedings resulted in no final order of removal
IJ’s decision to terminate proceedings resulted in no final order of removal
Related Posts
DOJ Eliminates Trump-era Case Quotas for Immigration Judges
Justice Department is ending the use of case quotas for immigration judges that became a point of contention during the Trump administration for undercutting judges’…
EOIR Announces Appointment of 24 New Immigration Judges
EOIR announced the appointment of 24 new immigration judges, including four Assistant Chief Immigration Judges and two Unit Chief Immigration Judges. The memo provides a…
AG Garland Gives Immigration Judges Back Authority to Administratively Close Cases
Attorney General (AG) Garland ruled that, while rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the BIA should…
4th Circuit says Immigration Judges must Develop Record.
The Fourth Circuit ruled that immigration judges have a legal duty to fully develop the record in cases before them, adding that this mandate is…
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued an interim final rule to require travelers from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries to pay operational and…