Coyt v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the same, reasoning that “in passing IIRIRA, Congress anticipated that petitioners would be able to pursue relief after departing from the United States.”
• deciding the case on Chevron’s first step and concluding that the departure bar cannot be applied to petitioners who have been involuntarily removed from the United States
• permitting judicial review of constitutional challenge to regulation because BIA lacks authority over the question
• treating a motion to reissue as a motion to reopen for purposes of analyzing whether the motion remained pending despite the petitioner’s removal from the United States
• “[P]hysical removal of a petitioner by the United States does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing a motion to reopen [immigration proceedings].”
• “A motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen.” (quoting Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).