Radtke v. Caschetta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Pereira does not prevent jurisdiction from vesting in immigration courts
• holding immigration court had jurisdiction because rule was satisfied, even though notice-to-appear lacked the time and place
• concluding that Pereira decided a “narrow” issue relating to the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal and “had nothing to say” about when an IJ obtains jurisdiction over removal proceedings; jurisdiction vests when a charging document (such as an NTA
• jurisdiction over removal proceedings vests when Notice to Appear (NTA) is filed with immigration court; under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b), NTA must contain time, place, and date information for initial removal hearing only “where practicable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).