Hugo Rangel Resendiz v. Leonard Kovensky, Acting Director, 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.

• holding that alien petitioner “may not collaterally attack his state conviction in a habeas petition against the INS under § 2241”
• “[B]e-cause immigration consequences remain collateral, the failure of counsel to advise his client of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment”
• “[B]ecause immigration consequences remain collateral, the failure of counsel to advise his client of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment”
• immigration consequences such as deportation render a 12 petitioner not in custody for purposes of a Section 2254 petition
• immigration 27 consequences of a state-court conviction constitute collateral consequences and do not satisfy the in-custody requirement for purposes of determining whether subject-matter 28 jurisdiction is lacking
• “[W]e adhere to the holding of Contreras and affirm the district court’s conclusion 3 that Resendiz may not collaterally attack his state conviction in a habeas petition against the INS 4 under § 2241.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).