Hanif v. Attorney General of United States

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that 1 Contrary to our dicta in Matter of Blancas, 23 I&N 458, 460 (BIA 2002
• explaining that courts “presume that the same term has the same meaning when it occurs here and there in a single statute” (quotation marks omitted)
• considering the meaning of “admission” in § 1182(h), a provision permitting waiver of inadmissibility and relief from removal for certain noncitizens with criminal convictions
• invoking the doctrine of absurdity upon a showing that “blind adherence to the literal meaning of a statute [would] lead to a patently absurd result that no rational legislature could have intended”
• noting that we follow the plain text unless “the literal meaning of a statute [could] lead to a patently absurd result that no rational legislature could have intended” (alteration in original) (quoting Barrios v. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 272, 277 n.11 (3d Cir. 2005)
• noting that we follow the plain text unless “the literal meaning of a statute [could] lead to a patently absurd result that no rational legislature could have intended” (alteration in original) (quoting Barrios v. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 272, 277 n.11 (3d Cir. 2005)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).