What the law says, what a court decided, and what changed. Statutes, agencies and events—with primary sources and practical context.
1571 entries · page 2 / 33
INA §241 addresses removal after an order, detention and statutory withholding of removal. Its detention and protection provisions raise separate questions and should not be treated as one automatic remedy.
Read entryINA §316 states general naturalization requirements for qualifying permanent residents, including residence, physical presence and good moral character. Other statutory routes and exceptions can apply.
Read entryINA §319 provides naturalization provisions for qualifying spouses of U.S. citizens, including a shorter residence route under specified conditions. Marriage alone does not confer citizenship or guarantee eligibility.
Read entryINA §242 governs judicial review of removal orders and includes important jurisdictional limits and exceptions. Administrative appeal to the BIA and federal judicial review are different procedures.
Read entryDHS is the federal department that includes USCIS, ICE and CBP. These components have different responsibilities; DHS is not the same institution as the immigration courts within DOJ.
Read entryICE is a DHS component with immigration-enforcement and investigative responsibilities. An ICE action or notice is distinct from an immigration judge’s decision and from a USCIS benefit determination.
Read entryCBP is a DHS component responsible for border-related functions, including inspecting travelers seeking admission. A visa issued by the Department of State is not a guarantee that CBP will admit the traveler.
Read entryThe Department of State administers visa functions through U.S. embassies and consulates. Visa issuance abroad is distinct from USCIS adjustment of status and from CBP admission at the border.
Read entryThe BIA is an administrative appellate body within EOIR in the Department of Justice. It reviews specified immigration decisions; it is not a federal court and does not issue every immigration decision.
Read entryBoca Raton is a city in Palm Beach County, Florida. Ace Immigration lists its Florida office there; this should not be described as an office within the City of Miami.
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 entryArizona is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Arizona does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryColorado is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Colorado does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryConnecticut is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Connecticut does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryGeorgia is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Georgia does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryHawaii is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Hawaii does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryIllinois is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Illinois does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryIndiana is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Indiana does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryLouisiana is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Louisiana does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryMaryland is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Maryland does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryMassachusetts is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Massachusetts does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryMichigan is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Michigan does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryMinnesota is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Minnesota does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryMissouri is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Missouri does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNebraska is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Nebraska does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNevada is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Nevada does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNew Jersey is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in New Jersey does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNew Mexico is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in New Mexico does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNew York is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in New York does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNorth Carolina is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in North Carolina does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryNorthern Mariana Islands is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Northern Mariana Islands does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryOhio is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Ohio does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryOregon is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Oregon does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryPennsylvania is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Pennsylvania does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryPuerto Rico is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Puerto Rico does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryTennessee is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Tennessee does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryKentucky is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Kentucky does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryTexas is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Texas does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryUtah is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Utah does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryVirginia is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Virginia does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
Read entryWashington is a geographic reference for the immigration locations listed here. Federal law governs immigration eligibility; a location in Washington does not itself establish status or court jurisdiction.
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.