Search for: "DOES 1 - 42 v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP "
Results 1 - 20
of 87
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2022, 12:37 pm
United States Citizenship & Immigration Services. 407 F.Supp.3d 311 (D.D.C. 2019); Knight First Amendment Institute v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 1:12 pm
A grant of asylum “does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States.... [read post]
7 May 2013, 5:00 am
[1] James T. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 4:21 pm
Douglas, in Doe V. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 6:51 am
No. 109–14, at 42 (2005)); see also Woods v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 6:51 am
No. 109–14, at 42 (2005)); see also Woods v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 6:51 am
No. 109–14, at 42 (2005)); see also Woods v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 8:41 am
On January 2, 2013, Gonzalez sent an e-mail to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), asking them to terminate Sanchez's immigrant visa petition. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 4:21 pm
Douglas, in Doe V. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 1:03 pm
United States, 536 U.S. 545 and applying Apprendi v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 12:02 pm
See 42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1, 1973ff-6(5). [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 12:22 pm
In United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 10:52 am
Question 1 was worth 40% and each of Questions 2 and 3 was worth 30%. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 4:00 pm
As the United States Supreme Court noted in Packingham v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 4:00 pm
As the United States Supreme Court noted in Packingham v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 4:53 pm
For example, the U.S. tax treatment does not tax active foreign income until it is repatriated back to the United States, generally in the form of div [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 7:48 am
District Court for the District of Columbia in P.J.E.S. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 1:02 pm
Case 1:19-cv-21725-JLK Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2019 Page 10 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISIONCASE NO.: 19-cv-21725-KINGJAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA,Plaintiff,v.CARNIVAL CORPORATION d/b/a/ CARNIVALCRUISE LINE, a foreign corporation,Defendant. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 2:11 pm
United States, No. 06-0218 "Order holding that appellate counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to inform client of his right to file certiorari is affirmed where: 1) counsel was retained, not appointed, and thus the Criminal Justice Act does not apply; 2) petitioner's other arguments were without merit. [read post]
7 May 2021, 7:07 pm
(citation omitted).2 Öcalan v. [read post]
