8 CFR 292.5 - Service upon and action by attorney or representative of record

Cite as8 CFR 292.5
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
123 practice notes
115 cases
  • Oliva–Ramos v. Attorney Gen. of United States, No. 10–3849.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 13, 2012
    ...further consideration of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(vii) and any potential violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.5. 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b) (right to counsel) In addition to the regulatory violations discussed above, Oliva–Ramos also claims that ICE agents violated 8 C.F.R. § 2......
  • Ali v. INS, Civ. A. No. 85-4403-MA.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • June 13, 1986
    ...by the Alis. The Alis contend that the INS did not follow its own regulations, including those that provide the right to counsel, 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b); the right to inspect the complete record of the proceedings, 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2), 292.4(b); that the district director's decision be base......
  • Louis v. Meissner, No. 81-1260-CIV-EPS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • February 24, 1982
    ...intimates no views on whether such interviews constitute primary or deferred inspection or whether they fall within the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b). To the extent that information obtained in said interviews is used to impeach the alien, United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 100 S.Ct......
  • Rodriguez v. Robbins, Nos. 13–56706
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 28, 2015
    ...795, 804 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that lawful permanent residents treated as applicants for admission are not entitled to counsel under 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b) ); Toro–Romero v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that different statutes govern exclusion of inadmissible non-ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT