Marc J. Centrella v. Avantor, Inc.

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 INS’s decision to grant work authorization has been “committed to agency discretion by law” and is therefore not subject to judicial review
• holding that the INS’s decision to grant work authorization has been “committed to agency discretion by law” and is therefore not subject to judicial review
• holding that the “permissive” language of the statute and implementing regulations gave the Attorney General “un- fettered” discretion to grant or deny pre-hearing voluntary departure
• holding that § 701(a)(2) precluded review of a categorical refusal by a district office to grant work authorization and pre-hearing voluntary departure to a certain class of eligible aliens over a three-year period
• holding that § 701(a)(2) precluded review of a categorical refusal by a district office to grant work authorization and pre-hearing voluntary departure to a certain class of eligible aliens over a three-year period
• noting that up to that point there was “nothing in the [INA] [that] expressly provid[ed] for the grant of employment authorization”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).