Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

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 absence of a \notwithstanding any other law\ clause in one provision of a statute signaled a lack of intent to repeal an earlier statute because the same new statute had used \notwithstanding any other law\ clauses in several other places
• noting that the new definition of conviction adopted by Congress in 1996 “represents a Congressional attempt to clear up the general confusion over when a conviction exists for immigration purposes”
• explaining that the distinction between a “deferral of [the] conviction itself” and “a judgment of guilt [being] entered, but later erased” is “irrelevant for purpose of the [FFOA]”
• explaining that the distinction between a “deferral of [the] conviction itself” and “a judgment of guilt [being] entered, but later erased” is “irrelevant for purpose of the [FFOA]”
• noting that “[b]oth this court and the Supreme Court have found no irreconcilable conflict where, by creating minor exceptions to later enacted statutes based on earlier ones, both statutes can be preserved”
• stating that “Congress definitively excised the third prong of Ozkok”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).