Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that \the reinstatement of removal statute expressly prohibits us from giving petitioner a second bite at the apple\
• holding due process violation requires showing “some cognizable prejudice” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• requiring 10 allegation of “some cognizable prejudice” to state a due 11 process claim (internal quotation marks omitted)
• denying a 6 due process claim where the “[p]etitioner fail[ed] to 7 demonstrate how the alleged shortcomings . . . prejudiced the 8 outcome”
• finding no prejudice where “additional procedural protections” would not have changed alien’s removal order
• requiring “some cognizable prejudice fairly attributable to the challenged process” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).