Arevalo v. Ashcroft

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an alien has \a right to seek relief\ which is \analytically separate and distinct from a right to the relief itself\
• concluding that service “as a legal witness to a sham marriage designed to avoid immigration laws” was “fairly probative of . . . truthfulness”
• deciding that plaintiff did not establish due process violation where he was “not precluded” from filing another U visa application
• deciding that plaintiff did not establish due process violation where he was “not precluded” from filing another U visa application
• holding that “al though aliens subject to reinstatement of a previous deportation order had a right to ... a hearing before the passage of the IIRIRA, ... that right was procedural and, therefore, can be taken away retroactively”
• holding, albeit in the context of appellate jurisdiction, that “reinstatement itself operates as the functional equivalent of a final order of removal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).