County of Galveston, Texas v. Triple B Services, LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider an unexhausted contention that the notice to appear was defective
• holding that Pereira’s “narrow ruling does not control” questions of an Immigration Court’s jurisdiction over removal proceedings
• holding that a notice to appear must include the time and place of removal proceedings to trigger the stop-time rule ending the accrual of continuous presence
• holding that an NTA “that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a
• holding that notice to appear that fails to designate time or place of removal proceeding does not trigger stop-time rule ending alien’s continuous presence period for cancellation of removal
• recognizing that the word “under” in a statutory cross-reference “is [a] chameleon that ‘must draw its meaning from its context’” (quoting Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 245 (2010)) (internal quotation mark omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).