Michael C. Barefield v. Allen T. Barefield, Julia Johnson, and Sharon Barefield, Individually and on behalf of Heritage Investments Group, 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 statute requires a noncitizen to “have a qualifying relative when the immigration court finalizes its decision on the application for cancellation of removal”
• recognizing the overruling of the “Chevron[, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)], deference regime.”
• expressing skepticism as to the existence of an undue delay exception, noting that petitioner “cite[d] no authority at all for this exception in the statute’s text”
• “[T]here must be a child—an unmarried person under the age of twenty-one— when the final decision on cancellation of removal is made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).