green
Positive treatment
15.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
John Doe v. Merrick Garland
See Armentero v. I.N.S., 340 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003), reh’g granted, opinion withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004), opinion after grant of reh’g, 412 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bernal v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1071-73 (9th Cir. 28 2003), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General is a proper 1 detention violates his procedural due process rights.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sidhu v. Wolf
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 27 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 28 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 1 claims that his credible fear proceedings denied him a fair and meaningful opportunity to 2 apply for relief in violation of the INA, the implementing regulations, and the Due Process 3 Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
discussed
Cited "see"
Singh v. Wolf
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 27 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 28 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 1 misallocated the burden of proof, failed to consider all the facts, and misapplied the law 2 when evaluating his credible fear claim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Collada v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 27 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 28 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 1 the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ruiz v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 26 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 27 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition).
discussed
Cited "see"
Singh v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 27 340 F.3d 1058, 1071-73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see 28 also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the 1 Petitioner brings two grounds for relief.
discussed
Cited "see"
Riseepan v. Wolf
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 26 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 27 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 4 Petitioner also asks that he “not be relocated outside the state of Arizona.” (Id.) 28 Because the Motion does not contain any discussion to support this request, it is denied to the extent Petitioner seeks to enjoin his…
discussed
Cited "see"
Singh v. Wolf
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 27 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 28 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 1 this Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction to review his claims pursuant to the Ninth 2 Circuit’s decision in Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 917 F.3d 1097 (9th 3 Cir. 2019), cert. granted, No. 19-161 (Oct. …
discussed
Cited "see"
Singh v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 26 340 F.3d 1058, 1071-73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see 27 also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 28 However, the Court will dismiss Respondents McHenry and Keenan because the rationale articulated in Armentero would not extend to them. 1 relief from removal”; and (4) award him costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the E…
discussed
Cited "see"
Heer v. Wolf
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 24 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. 25 Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition). 26 4 In Thuraissigiam, the Ninth Circuit found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (e)(2)’s statutory 27 limitation on habeas corpus review “violate[d] the Suspension Clause as applied to Thuraissigiam,” and held “[t]he district cou…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jabed v. Keeton
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1071-73 (9th Cir. 27 2003), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General is a proper 28 respondent to an immigration habeas corpus petition). 1 demonstrate that he should not be detained violates his procedural due process rights under 2 the Fifth Amendment. 3 In his prayer for relief, Petitioner asks the Court to: (1) declare that ICE and ORR’s 4 age redetermination violates the TVPRA; (2) enjoin ICE and the United States Executive 5 Office…
discussed
Cited "see"
Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1071-73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were 22 proper respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 23 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kumar v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 26 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 27 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kaur v. Barr
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 , 1071- 73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 27 respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 28 is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition).
examined
Cited "see"
Luis L. Armentero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(4×)
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.2003) {Armentero I), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2004) (order).
discussed
Cited "see"
Armentero v. Ins
(2×)
See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003) (Armentero I), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez-Piedras v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Armentaro v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1073 (9th Cir.2003) ("Until the exact parameters of the Attorney General's power to detain aliens under the new Homeland Security scheme are decisively delineated, we believe it makes sense for immigration habeas petitioners to name the Attorney General in addition to naming the DHS Secretary as respondents in their habeas petitions.”) (emphasis in original), opinion withdrawn by, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jarpa v. Mumford
The DHS Secretary possesses statutory authority to affect the detention and re moval of noncitizen detainees, and thus, possesses legal authority over Mr. Jarpa. 6 U.S.C. §§ 202 (3), 251(2); see also Sanchez-Penunuri, 7 F.Supp.3d at 1150 (D.Colo. 2013) (citing Armentero v. I.N.S., 340 F.3d 1058, 1072 (9th Cir.2003), reh’g granted, opinion withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2004), opinion after grant of reh’g, 412 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.2005)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Peter CUNAG, AKA Peter James Martinez, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Peter CUNAG, AKA Peter James Martinez, Defendant-Appellant
03-50067.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 31, 2004.
Pegeen D. Rhyne, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., William S. Harris, Esq., Stewart & Harris, South Pasadena, CA, for Defendants Appellant.
Hall, Trott, Callahan.
Published
ORDER
The Opinion filed June 14, 2004, slip op. 7939, and appearing at 371 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.2004), is hereby ordered withdrawn. It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. The case remains under submission, and a new opinion will be filed in the near future.