First Circuit· 8/29/2003

Arevalo v. Ashcroft

Citations

344 F.3d 1
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18067
2003 WL 22046805

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).

Judges: Selya, Arnold, Lipez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

99 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

58 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Arevalo v. Ashcroft

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.