Adzei v. Edward Bldrs., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because deferral of removal is an inherently non-final remedy, § 1252(a)(2)(C), which speaks only of a final order, appears to be inapplicable
• holding “a decision under the CAT to deny even deferral of removal [does not] fall[] within the jurisdiction‐stripping provisions of either § 1252(a)(2)(B) or § 1252(a)(2)(C)”
• “Notwithstanding the superficially absolute nature of [§ 1252(a)(2)(c)] ... we have decided that it still permits us to decide whether the person before the court is the one who committed the crime, and whether the crime was properly characterized as an aggravated felony.”
• Rather than being “a jurisdictional rule in the strict sense,” the exhaustion requirement is “a case‐processing rule that limits the arguments available to an alien in this court when those arguments have not been raised properly at the agency level.”
• “Notwithstanding the super‐ ficially absolute nature of [§ 1252(a)(2)(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).