Примеры использования Deportation proceedings на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
They already started deportation proceedings.
Aliens who have entered the United States andwho violate U.S. immigration laws are subject to deportation proceedings.
I overstayed the visa, had deportation proceedings, and was granted Voluntary Departyre.
The government is currently deciding Whether to initiate deportation proceedings against him.
Detention in the absence of deportation proceedings was thus found to be contrary to the aim of the European Union Return Directive.
This jurisprudence has also consistently been applied to deportation proceedings.
You will be referred to immigration court for deportation proceedings, and we're gonna inform your parole officer about evidence of fraud.
Asylum and withholding of exclusion/deportation in exclusion or deportation proceedings.
Rather, deportation proceedings are in the realm of public law and involve the State's ability to regulate citizenship and immigration.
The Aliens andFrontiers Service is the authority with competence to initiate deportation proceedings.
However, the two-week payment window available to migrants before deportation proceedings were initiated, while admittedly brief, could be extended by up to six months in such cases.
The State party submits that there was no bias with respect to the author's deportation proceedings.
The Head of the Migration Department has the authority to start deportation proceedings and the Migration Department has the authority to enforce the deportation order.
In the deportation proceedings in the present case, Mr. Stewart was given ample opportunity to present evidence of his family connections to the Immigration Appeal Division.
It is thus necessary to determine whether the duration of the deportation proceedings was excessive.
In order toavoid such situations recurring, in future, deportation proceedings would be initiated only once the State Committee on Nationalities and Migration had given its consent.
Mr. Iwasawa corroborated the fact that in its consideration of communications,the Committee had found that the concept of a suit of law did not apply to extradition cases or to deportation proceedings.
However, the Court indicated that detention was permitted only as long as deportation proceedings were in progress and provided that the duration of such proceedings was not excessive.
In that context, the Supreme Court also held that evidence collected at an investigative hearing should be subject to an order preventing its subsequent direct orderivative use in extradition or deportation proceedings where the potential for such use by the state exists.
It concludes that the deportation proceedings of the author do not fall within the scope of article 14, paragraph 1, and are inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Had the author not voluntarily left the country by the fixed deadline, andhad his deadline not been extended upon the request of the Committee, deportation proceedings ultimately would have been initiated by the authorities.
The Committee has noted the State party's argument that deportation proceedings do not involve either"the determination of any criminal charge" or"rights and obligations in a suit at law.
Anyone fulfilling the necessary conditions was entitled to all legal guarantees andcould be deported only if the application for asylum was refused. The deportation proceedings could of course be appealed before the courts.
The State party should ensure that persons subject to deportation proceedings benefit from an effective right to be heard, to have an adequate defence and to request that their case be reviewed by a competent authority.
The State party argues that, given the equivalence of article 6 of the European Convention and article 14 of the Covenant,the European Court's case law is persuasive that the deportation proceedings challenged by the author are not encompassed by article 14 of the Covenant.
The Committee refers to its jurisprudence that deportation proceedings did not involve either,"the determination of any criminal charge" or"rights and obligations in a suit at law" within the meaning of article 14.
As to the author's allegation under article 14 that she was not afforded an effective remedy,the Committee has noted the State party's argument that deportation proceedings do not involve either"the determination of any criminal charge" or"rights and obligations in a suit at law.
Canada initiated deportation proceedings against the author under article 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which mandates that a permanent resident or foreign national becomes inadmissible"on grounds of serious criminality" for conviction of an offense where a"term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed.
As to the article 14 claims,the State party finds this provision inapplicable as deportation proceedings are neither the determination of a criminal charge nor a rights and obligations in a"suit at law.
The Committee declined to express its view as to whether a deportation proceeding is a"suit at law" in that case, as well as in Ahani v. Canada, another case involving deportation proceedings of a person representing a threat to national security.