Mojica v. Reno

How courts have described this case

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

• deriving from same analytic method conclusion that section 440(d) does not apply to convictions predating AEDPA’s enactment
• listing statutes from California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington
• decided two months before Gomez-Hernandez’s deportation hearing, and holding that Section 212(c) relief was available to aliens who pleaded guilty to aggravated felonies before AEDPA was enacted
• “The AEDPA does not amend, or even mention, section 2241 of Title 28”
• deference is “wholly inappropriate” where the Attorney General’s conclusion that AED-PA section 440(d) applied to pending cases was “not based on statutory construction but rather on her interpretation of judicial default rules enunciated by the Supreme Court”
• court lacked jurisdiction under § 2241 to address habeas petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).