In re Parr

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that section 440(a)’s repeal of direct review is constitutional on the basis of representations by the INS that some avenue of judicial relief remains available for core constitutional concerns
• concluding that section 440(a)’s repeal of direct review is constitutional on the basis of representations by the INS that some avenue of judicial relief remains available for core constitutional concerns
• holding Congress could constitutionally remove habeas jurisdiction over direct challenges to deportation orders, leaving only jurisdiction to hear claims relating to matters collateral to deportation orders
• Government stated that alien could not challenge deportation order by way of habeas review, but could challenge detention if taken into INS custody
• “The absence of an opportunity for some aliens to file a petition for review in a court of appeals does not necessarily mean, however, that the federal courts are closed to all claims by such aliens arising in the course of deportation proceedings.”
• “The absence of an opportunity for some aliens to file a petition for review in a court of appeals does not necessarily mean, however, that the federal courts are closed to all claims by such aliens arising in the course of deportation proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).