Franika Flores v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that section 244(f)(4) of the Act provides that a TPS recipient is considered being in lawful nonimmigrant status and thus meets the three requirements in section 245(a) of the Act
• noting that this court interprets a statute by considering “the language of the statute itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)
• involving a plaintiff who had entered the United States without inspection, and reflecting the dispute at issue centered on the plaintiff’s ability to satisfy the “inspected and admitted” and “admissible” requirements of § 1255(a)
• discussing the contours of the Attorney General’s discretion under the TPS statute
• “The Government argues that . . . the language in § 1254a(f) only exempts [TPS beneficiaries] from the work authorization issue in § 1255(c)(2).”
• “The Government argues that . . . the language in § 1254a(f) only exempts [TPS beneficiaries] from the work authorization issue in § 1255(c)(2).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).