Quishenberry v. UnitedHealthcare, 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 “collateral attacks [on state convictions] are not available in a . . . petition challenging the BIA’s removal decision”
• holding that criminal convictions are not subject to collateral attack in removal proceedings
• explaining that collateral attacks on state convictions are not available in challenges to BIA removal decisions
• suggesting that its case law might “permit divisibility in ‘all statutes of conviction . . . regardless of their structure, so long as they contain an element or ele- ments that could be satisfied either by removable or non-removable con- duct’ ” (internal citation omitted)
• listing “three approaches” that the Second Circuit “might adopt” to determining when a statute was divisible and not- ing that “the exact parameters of the divisibility inquiry have not been determined”
• modified categorical approach allows sentencing court to review Shepard- approved documents “only to determine which crime within a statute the defendant committed, not how he committed that crime”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).