Christopher Pickering v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a conviction vacated “because of procedural or substantive infirmities” is not valid for immigration purposes
• stating that a conviction vacated “because of procedural or substantive infirmities” is not valid for immigration purposes
• explaining the difference between a conviction vacated for rehabilitative or immigration reasons and a conviction vacated for procedural or substantive infirmities
• explaining the difference between a conviction vacated for rehabilitative or immigration reasons and a conviction vacated for procedural or substantive infirmities
• acknowledging the 1996 “amendment” of section 240(c)(3)(A) (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)), but noting that “the amendment ha[d] only a minimal effect on the standard, if any, because evidence that is ‘equivocal’ could not be considered ‘clear and convincing.’”
• “A conviction vacated for rehabilitative or immigration reasons remains valid for immigration purposes, while one vacated because of procedural or substantive infirmities does not.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).