Cruz-Miguel 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 that the two forms of parole serve “distinct functions” and recognizing that Section 1182(d)(5)(A
• distinguishing between being paroled into the United States and being released on recognizance, noting that they serve “distinct functions”
• distinguishing between being paroled into the United States and being released on recognizance, noting that they serve “distinct functions”
• discussing that “parole into the United States,” which is typically granted at the border, is a term of art that is distinct from “conditional parole” under § 1226, and “parole into the United States” specifically refers to parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A
• “In other words, the United States accepts an alien paroled under § 1182(d)(5)(A) into the country for as long as the humanitarian or public benefit purpose persists.”
• \Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of adjustment of status.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).