McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, 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 district court had jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenge to INS procedures that was collateral to individual determinations
• concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a, the immigration statute construed in Jean, \does not deprive district courts of jurisdiction to review allegations of systemic abuses by [agency] officials\
• holding that IIRIRA’s specific bar on judicial review of decisions relating to adjustment of status did not reach “general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications.”
• holding that the federal district court had jurisdiction over an action in which respondents alleged that an agency had engaged in a pattern and practice of due process violations
• holding that the INA did not strip jurisdiction over certain claims because otherwise “meaningful judicial review . . . would be foreclosed”
• holding that the INA did not strip jurisdiction over certain claims because otherwise “meaningful judicial review . . . would be foreclosed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).