Marlene Jaggernauth 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.

• concluding that we had jurisdiction after the BIA granted reconsideration but ex- plicitly upheld the earlier removal order
• concluding that we had jurisdiction after the BIA granted reconsideration but explicitly upheld the earlier removal order
• reasoning that the subsequent order “explicitly upholds” the prior order, suggesting that the BIA intended “to leave the [prior] order ... intact and unmodified”
• reasoning that the subsequent order “explicitly upholds” the prior order, suggesting that the BIA intended “to leave the [prior] order . . . intact and unmodified”
• stating that it is “clear that the finality of [an] order of removal [is] not disturbed by [the petitioner’s] filing of a motion for reconsideration”
• explaining that, in immigration cases, we have jurisdiction to re- view only final orders of removal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).