S.W. v. A.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the restricted habeas review of expedited removal orders \does not implicate the jurisdictional issues\ raised in St. Cyr
• writing that AILA concerned the “jurisdictional restrictions in subsection (e)(3)”
• “Li ... has no constitutional due process right to challenge her immigration status or to petition for entry into the United States because she is a non-resident alien seeking entry at the border into the United States”
• “A non-citizen has no constitutional due 9 process right to challenge her immigration status or to petition for entry into the United 10 States [when] she is a non-resident alien seeking entry at the border into the United 11 States.”
• “On its face, [§ 1252(e)(2) ] does not appear to permit the court to inquire into whether section 1225(b)(1) was properly invoked, but only whether it was invoked at all. Were there any doubt of congressional intent, it is resolved by [§ 1252(e)(5

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).