Ninth Circuit· 1/20/2010

Coyt v. Holder

Citations

593 F.3d 902
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1158
2010 WL 174254

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).

Judges: Fernandez, Thomas, Aldrich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.