Skip to main content

Citations

  • 20 I. & N. Dec. 223

Syllabus

SANCHEZ, 20 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA1990) ID 3139 (PDF) (1) The immigration judgeerred in holding that he had jurisdiction to conduct a hearing in bondproceedings for a criminal alien who was still incarcerated in a MarylandState penal institution. (2) The Immigration andNaturalization Service did not have actual physical custody of the criminalalien, and therefore there was no authority for the commencement of bondproceedings before an immigration judge under the regulations. (3) The filing of a Servicedetainer with the Maryland penal authorities does not constitute actualphysical custody. (4) Section 242(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(i) (1988), whichindicates that the Attorney General should begin any deportation proceedingas expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction, is nota vehicle for incarcerated aliens to demand immediate deportation hearings.

How courts have described this case

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

  • “Jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence before an immigration judge when a charging document is filed with the Office of the Immigration Judge .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.