Jian Le Lin v. U.S. Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the plain language of the statute, the statutory structure, and the amendment scheme all point to one conclusion: IIRIRA guarantees an alien the right to file one motion to reopen, and the departure bar impermissibly undercuts that right”
• explaining that the physical-presence requirement included in the statute leads to an inference that Congress “intentionally chose not to require such presence for a motion to reopen, except in the specified circumstances.”
• “Congress clearly considered and included some restrictions on the ability to file a motion to reopen but chose not to make a limitation based on the alien’s physical location.”
• federal statute confers authority on federal Board of Immigration Appeals to entertain motion to reopen removal order after movant has been deported, and that authority cannot be eliminated by regulation
• “[An] inference may be drawn from the exclusion of language from one statutory provision that is included in other provisions of the same statute.” (quoting Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 578 (2006))
• federal statute confers authority on federal Board of Immigration Appeals to entertain motion to reopen removal order after movant has been deported, and that authority cannot be eliminated by regulation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).