United States v. Barajas-Alvarado

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that factor weighed against relief for thirty-five year old with no evidence of poor health
• holding that Congress has deprived courts of jurisdiction to review a direct appeal from an expedited removal order
• holding that the INA \precludes meaningful judicial review of the validity of the proceedings that result in an expedited removal order.\
• holding that “a court’s habeas jurisdiction” under § 242(e)(2) “does not extend to review of the claim that an alien was wrongfully deprived of the administrative review permitted under the statute and applicable regulations”
• noting that defendant could not “easily overcome such grounds of inadmissibility” as deliberate fraud and two prior removal orders
• noting that it “assum[ed] that [the alien] could establish that he would have” exercised, for prejudice-analysis purposes, the due process right he claimed to have

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).