Legal Opinion

Apokarina v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 7, 2004No. 02-4265UnpublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

The issue in this case was initially straightforward. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1429, the Attorney General of the United States may not consider naturalization applications of aliens against whom removal proceedings are pending. We were asked to decide whether a district court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) to review the denial of a naturalization application when that denial is based on § 1429 (i.e., there was, apparently, a pending removal proceeding at the time the naturalization application was denied).

At oral argument, however, it came to our attention that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. CRUZBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1975
  2. Petition for Naturalization of Marko TerzichCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
  3. Gatcliffe v. RenoDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1998
  4. Mosleh v. StrappDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1998
  5. United States v. AliDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1991

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
  2. Ajlani v. ChertoffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
  3. Dalal Zayed v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  4. Amado De Lara Bellajaro v. Thomas J. Schiltgen, District Director of the Ins, Los Angeles District Office Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  5. Perriello v. NapolitanoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API