Dufour & Co. v. Meffre

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that during the period in question two of the challenged Offices (Los Angeles and Detroit
• holding that claims that are not asking the Court “to review the propriety of any given parole decision, but, instead, ‘simply seek compliance with certain minimum procedural safeguards when parole decisions are made’ . . . do not fall within the jurisdictional bar of 1252(a
• finding that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not apply 20 because the plaintiffs were not challenging the outcome of the agency’s decision making, but the method by which the policy was being applied
• finding that “the allegation that the five ICE Field Officers are no longer providing the ‘individualized determinations’ of parole eligibility and procedural protections required by the Parole Directive” satisfied the commonality requirement
• discussing scope of Accardi in immigration context: “agencies can be held 6 No. 20-1304 accountable to their own codifications of procedures and pol- icies”
• discussing scope of Accardi in immigration context: “agencies can be held 6 No. 20-1304 accountable to their own codifications of procedures and pol- icies”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).