Cases pin-citing Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr

Cases pin-citing Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr  ·  2001  ·  271 pinpoint citations from 97 cases, 66 distinct passages.

Puri v. Gonzales  ·  2006-09-28  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions, provide an adequate substitute through the courts of appeals.”
Puri v. Gonzales  ·  2006-09-28  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
"Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions, provide an adequate substitute through the courts of appeals."
Dominion Concepts, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration  ·  2006-08-21  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“[a] statute may not be applied retroactively ... absent a clear identification from Congress that it intended such a result.”
Rafael Maldonado-Galindo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General  ·  2006-08-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 121 S. Ct. at 2271
“A statute may not be applied retroactively ... absent a clear indication from Congress that it intended such a result.”
Nadarajah v. Gonzales  ·  2006-03-17  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
"[I]f an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, and where an alternative interpretation of the statute is `fairly possible,' we are obligated to construe the statute to avoid such problems."
Nadarajah v. Gonzales  ·  2006-03-16  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“[I]f an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, and where an alternative interpretation of the statute is ‘fairly possible,’ we are obligated to construe the statute to avoid such problems.”
Manuel Lopez-Castellanos v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General  ·  2006-02-16  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“IIRIRA’s amendment of the definition of ‘aggravated felony’ ... clearly states that it applies with respect to ‘conviction[s] ... entered before, on, or after’ the statute’s enactment date.”
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.  ·  2006-02-15  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
"[I]f an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, and where an alternative interpretation of the statute is `fairly possible,' we are obligated to construe the statute to avoid such problems."
Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales  ·  2005-08-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 533 U.S. at 289
“Preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence.”
Margarita Garcia-Ramirez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General  ·  2005-08-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 S. Ct. at 2271
"Preserving the client's right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence."
United States v. M. Alvarado-Rivera  ·  2005-06-20  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“We have recognized the existence of a due process liberty interest when a State’s statutory parole procedures prescribe that a prisoner ‘shall’ be paroled if certain conditions are satisfied.”
United States v. Turner  ·  2005-04-29  ·  E.D. New York  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“if an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, and where an alternative interpretation of the statute is ‘fairly possible,’ [citation omitted] we are obligated to construe the statute to avoid such problems”
Wuliger v. Owens  ·  2005-04-18  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“a statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably support that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date”
Wuliger v. Sewell  ·  2005-04-06  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“a statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably support that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date”
Wuliger v. Anstaett  ·  2005-04-05  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“a statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably support that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date”
Restrepo v. McElroy  ·  2005-02-18  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“St. Cyr II”
United States v. Sarun Cooper  ·  2005-02-15  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“We only defer ... to agency interpretations of statutes that, applying the normal ‘tools of statutory construction,’ are ambiguous.”
United States v. Cooper  ·  2005-01-26  ·  Third Circuit  ·  pin 533 U.S. at 289
“We only defer . . . to agency interpretations of statutes that, applying the normal ‘tools of statutory construction,’ are ambiguous.”
Alexis Milton Edwards v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Eva Trinidad Falconi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service  ·  2004-12-17  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“St. Cyril”
Abu Ali v. Ashcroft  ·  2004-12-16  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest”
Zurich Capital Markets, Inc. v. Coglianese  ·  2004-09-23  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 150 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“A statute may not be applied retroactively [] absent a clear indication from Congress that it intended such a result”
Jose Francisco Nunes v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General  ·  2004-07-08  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
"[T]o conclude that the writ is no longer available in this context would represent a departure from historical practice in immigration law. The writ of habeas corpus has always been available to review the legality of Executive detention."
Lennox Thom v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States  ·  2004-05-27  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
"§ 212(c) relief remains available for aliens, like respondent, whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements"
Brito-Batista v. Ashcroft  ·  2004-04-20  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“[Petitioner] was ineligible to apply for ‘cancellation from removal’ by its terms because he was convicted of an aggravated felony.”
Nevio Restrepo v. Edward McElroy Interim Field Office Director for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, New York  ·  2004-04-01  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
" St. Cyr II "
Ali Padash v. Immigration and Naturalization Service  ·  2004-02-19  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“We only defer ... to agency interpretations of statutes that, applying the normal tools of statutory construction, are ambiguous.”
Santiago-Diaz v. United States  ·  2004-01-23  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“Plea agreements involve a quid pro quo between a criminal defendant and the government.”
Athanasios Theodoropoulos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service  ·  2004-01-12  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“St. Cyr II”
Khan v. Ashcroft  ·  2003-12-09  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“St Cyril”
Khan v. Ashcroft  ·  2003-12-09  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
" St. Cyr II "
Ariel Osvalod Orquera Aldo Agustin Orquera Gladis Mabel Orquera Ariadna Brenda Orquera v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General  ·  2003-12-01  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“For the INS to prevail it must overcome ... the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action.... ”
Murray v. Ashcroft  ·  2003-10-02  ·  E.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“We conclude that habeas jurisdiction under § 2241 was not repealed by AEDPA and IIRIRA.”
M.A. Ex Rel. E.S. v. State-Operated School District of Newark  ·  2003-09-16  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“[A] title alone is not controlling.”
Delfino Vasquez-Lopez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General  ·  2003-09-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
"We only defer ... to agency interpretations of statutes that, applying the normal tools of statutory construction, are ambiguous."
United States Ex Rel. Kovalev v. Ashcroft  ·  2003-07-30  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“[T]he scope of review on habeas is considerably more limited than on [Administrative Procedures Act]style review.”
Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.  ·  2003-07-16  ·  E.D. Virginia  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“a statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably support that it has any application to conduct *734 that occurred at an earlier date”
Dee W. Kilpatrick, Claimant-Appellee v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs  ·  2003-05-07  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“We only defer ... to agency interpretations of statutes that, applying the normal ‘tools of statutory construction,’ are ambiguous.”
Gonzalo-Garzon v. Ashcroft  ·  2003-03-13  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“ § 212(c) relief remains available for aliens ... who ... would have been eligible for § 212(c) relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect”
Anathanasios Theodoropoulos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service  ·  2002-12-20  ·  Second Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 S. Ct. at 2271
"A statute may not be applied retroactively ... absent a clear indication from Congress that it intended such a result."
Tessema v. Immigration & Naturalization Service  ·  2002-10-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“§ 212(c) relief remains available for aliens ... who ... would have been eligible for § 212(c) relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect”
Manzueta v. Ashcroft  ·  2002-03-29  ·  W.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“[C]ancellation of removal [pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b] ... applies to all aliens with convictions pre-dating IIRIRA and to all guilty pleas entered by aliens to deporta-ble crimes after it took effect.”
Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc. v. Holland  ·  2001-09-21  ·  S.D. West Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 289
“if an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, and where an alternative interpretation of the statute is ‘fairly possible,’ we are obligated to construe the statute to avoid such problems.”
Vladimir Ismailov v. Janet Reno, 1 Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice Doris Meissner, 2 Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service  ·  2001-08-30  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“[f]or the INS to prevail it must overcome ... the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action”
Vang v. Ashcroft  ·  2001-07-11  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 121 S. Ct. at 2271
“Accordingly, we conclude that habeas jurisdiction under § 2241 was not repealed by AEDPA and IIRIRA.”
Benjamin v. Fraser  ·  2001-07-11  ·  S.D. New York  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 121 L. Ed. 2d at 347
“Metro-active statutes raise special concerns”
Page 2 of 6   ← Prev   Next →