Claude
ChatGPT
PerplexityINS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
A “well-founded fear” of persecution is a more generous standard than the clear-probability test for withholding.
Practice Area Spotlight
Immigration
Immigration lawyers use Midpage to research removal defense, asylum and withholding claims, detention challenges, and federal-court review of agency action. The statutes, regulations, and case law behind that work are collected below.
How Immigration Lawyers Use Midpage
Browse to see how Midpage works through immigration questions from real lawyers.
BIA Deference After Loper BrightHow have circuits treated BIA statutory interpretations since Chevron was overruled? Collect decisions declining or granting deference post-Loper Bright.Filing Deadlines After Riley v. BondiSummarize how courts have applied Riley’s holding that the 30-day petition-for-review deadline is a claims-processing rule, including forfeiture and waiver outcomes.Particular Social Group by CircuitCompare the circuits’ treatment of family-based and gender-based particular social groups, with recent published decisions.Mandatory Detention After Yajure-HurtadoHow have district courts and circuits responded to Matter of Yajure-Hurtado’s expansion of mandatory detention for entrants without inspection? Collect habeas outcomes.Consular Nonreviewability After MuñozHow have courts applied Department of State v. Muñoz to visa-denial challenges by U.S.-citizen family members?Classwide Relief After CASAAfter Trump v. CASA limited universal injunctions, how are immigration plaintiffs using Rule 23(b)(2) classes and APA vacatur to obtain broad relief?
Core Immigration Collections
The statutes, regulations, agency materials, and courts behind immigration practice.
Statutes
The INA provisions in Title 8 that structure removal, relief, and review — plus the APA and habeas statutes federal-court challenges run through.
| INA definitions “Conviction,” “admission,” and the aggravated-felony list that drive removability and bars to relief | 8 U.S.C. § 1101 |
| Inadmissibility grounds Criminal, fraud, and unlawful-presence grounds — with the § 212 waivers | 8 U.S.C. § 1182 |
| Deportability grounds Classes of deportable noncitizens, including the § 237(a)(2) criminal grounds | 8 U.S.C. § 1227 |
| Inspection & expedited removal Applicants for admission, credible-fear screening, and § 1225(b) mandatory detention | 8 U.S.C. § 1225 |
Regulations
The parallel DHS (8 CFR ch. I) and EOIR (8 CFR ch. V) regulations, plus the State Department’s visa rules.
| EOIR — Immigration courts & BIA BIA appeals, IJ procedure, custody redeterminations, and motions to reopen | 8 CFR Part 1003 |
| EOIR — Removal proceedings Hearings before the immigration judge, cancellation, and voluntary departure | 8 CFR Part 1240 |
| EOIR — Asylum & withholding Asylum and CAT procedure before the immigration courts, including credible-fear review | 8 CFR Part 1208 |
Agency Decisions & Guidance
The administrative decisions and manuals that control before the agency — Board precedents sit alongside the case law.
| BIA — Precedent decisions (I&N Dec.) Published Board precedents and Attorney General referral opinions — searchable alongside case law | Decisions |
| AAO — Administrative decisionsComing soon Appeals from USCIS benefit denials | Decisions |
Courts & Tribunals
The forums where immigration cases are fought — from the immigration courts through the courts of appeals.
| Appellate U.S. Supreme Court; all 13 federal circuits — the 9th, 5th, 2d, and 11th carry the heaviest immigration dockets |
| Trial U.S. District Courts — § 2241 detention habeas, APA challenges to DHS and EOIR action, and § 1421(c) and § 1447(b) naturalization suits |
| Administrative Board of Immigration Appeals — published I&N Dec. precedents, including Attorney General referral opinions; Administrative Appeals Office |
Key Cases
The controlling authorities — linked to full text, treatment, and citing decisions in Midpage.
Zadvydas v. Davis
Post-order detention under § 1231(a)(6) is presumptively limited to six months once removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Jennings v. Rodriguez
Sections 1225(b) and 1226(c) confer no statutory right to periodic bond hearings — the constitutional questions were remanded.
Pereira v. Sessions
A notice to appear that omits the time and place of the hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule.
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
The stop-time rule requires a single, complete NTA — notice cannot arrive in installments.
Patel v. Garland
Federal courts cannot review factfinding underlying denials of the discretionary relief enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
Section 1252(d)(1) exhaustion is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, and no discretionary motion to reconsider is required.
Wilkinson v. Garland
Cancellation hardship determinations are mixed questions of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Campos-Chaves v. Garland
An in absentia order stands where the noncitizen received a § 1229(a)(2) notice for the hearing they missed.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Chevron overruled — courts exercise independent judgment on statutory meaning, reshaping deference to BIA interpretations of the INA.
Department of State v. Muñoz
A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse’s admission — reinforcing consular nonreviewability.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Visa-petition revocation under § 1155 is discretionary and unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Riley v. Bondi
The 30-day petition-for-review deadline is a claims-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture — not a jurisdictional bar.
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts’ equitable authority — pushing broad immigration relief into Rule 23(b)(2) classes and APA vacatur.
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
Substantial-evidence review governs the agency’s whole persecution determination, including the application of law to undisputed facts.