What the law says, what a court decided, and what changed. Statutes, agencies and events—with primary sources and practical context.
18 entries
Matter of M-A-M- sets a framework for evaluating a respondent’s competency in removal proceedings and identifying appropriate safeguards. A mental-health diagnosis alone does not end a case.
Read entryMatter of Chawathe explains that most administrative immigration benefit proceedings use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard: more likely than not. The standard is not universal across immigration law.
Read entryThe June 16, 2021 Attorney General decision vacated A-B- I and II. Matter of S-S-F-M- expressly overruled this 2021 decision in September 2025; this entry is historical, not current controlling guidance.
Read entryOn August 13, 2026, the BIA held that advance-parole travel is a departure for the ten-year unlawful-presence provision and overruled Arrabally and Yerrabelly. The new holding applies prospectively; departure alone does not prove every element of inadmissibility.
Read entryThe Attorney General’s September 2, 2025 decision overruled A-B- III (2021) and restored adherence to A-B- I and II in all pending or future cases. It also overruled A-R-C-G- and decisions relying on it.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that asylum’s well-founded-fear standard is different from the higher probability standard for withholding of deportation. This historical distinction does not guarantee either form of protection.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that former INA §212(c) relief remained available to certain people whose pre-IIRIRA convictions resulted from plea agreements. This is a historically bounded retroactivity ruling, not a general current waiver.
Read entryThe Supreme Court construed a specific post-removal-period detention provision as limited to a period reasonably necessary for removal. Six months was described as presumptively reasonable, not an automatic release deadline.
Read entryThe Supreme Court found several provisions of Arizona S.B. 1070 preempted by federal immigration law. It did not facially invalidate the status-check provision, while leaving questions about implementation open.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that a notice to appear lacking the hearing time or place does not trigger the cancellation-of-removal stop-time rule. That holding does not mean every notice defect invalidates proceedings.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that the cancellation stop-time rule requires a single notice containing the required statutory information. It rejected combining separate documents to satisfy that specific trigger.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that the criminal-alien judicial-review bar does not preclude review of factual challenges to a Convention Against Torture order. This does not guarantee CAT protection or eliminate all review limits.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that a statutory judicial-review bar covers factual determinations underlying specified discretionary-relief decisions, including adjustment of status in removal proceedings. Legal questions and statutory exceptions require separate analysis.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard for cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under INA §242(a)(2)(D).
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that receiving the required later notice of the missed hearing can defeat rescission based solely on an initial notice to appear lacking time and place.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that a U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse’s admission, rejecting the constitutional due-process claim presented against a consular visa denial.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that revocation under 8 U.S.C. §1155 is discretionary and falls within the judicial-review bar in §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), including the revocation at issue following a sham-marriage determination.
Read entryThe Supreme Court held that the voluntary-departure deadline at issue carries to the next business day when it falls on a weekend or legal holiday.
Read entryEntries are based on the primary sources listed on each page. An event date is not a last-review date. Historical events and decisions do not establish that a policy still applies today. Russian text is an informational translation; use the original English authority for legal work. No private client cases are published here.
No. Ace Immigration is a private law firm. Statutes, applicable regulations and governing decisions are primary authorities; these explanations help locate them but do not replace them.
No. A publication date records publication, while an event date records a historical milestone. Check subsequent developments. Russian text is an informational translation, not an official legal version.