Santiago Martinez-Camargo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, John D. Ashcroft, Kevin D. Rooney, and Brian Perryman

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he Supreme Court has held that where an administrative regulatory violation does not adversely affect a petitioner’s substantive rights an exclusionary remedy is not available.”
• “not every violation of an agency regulatory requirement results in the invalidation of all subsequent agency action”
• “[T]he Supreme Court has held that where an administra- tive regulatory violation does not adversely affect a peti- tioner’s substantive rights an exclusionary remedy is not available.”
• reaching the same conclusion on similar facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).