In re Rojas

44 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,218 times 616 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
United States v. Salerno
481 U.S. 739 (1987) Cited 5,665 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a facial challenger "must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid"
Bailey v. United States
516 U.S. 137 (1995) Cited 2,783 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Government must show active employment of firearm to support § 924(c) conviction
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 (1987) Cited 2,410 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous
Reno v. Flores
507 U.S. 292 (1993) Cited 1,777 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the immigration context, minors aged sixteen or seventeen are not "too young or too ignorant to exercise" their right to make a revocable waiver of a removal or deportation hearing
Smith v. United States
508 U.S. 223 (1993) Cited 1,207 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a person who sells a firearm "uses" it within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) "even though those actions do not involve using the firearm as a weapon"
McCarthy v. Bronson
500 U.S. 136 (1991) Cited 826 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 636(b)(B) allows nonconsensual referral to magistrate judges to enter reports and recommendations on all "actions for monetary or injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983"
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.
486 U.S. 281 (1988) Cited 806 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n
485 U.S. 439 (1988) Cited 804 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an adherent was not entitled to challenge a third party's actions that offended his beliefs
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
372 U.S. 144 (1963) Cited 1,797 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "[a]bsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute, these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face"
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 43,281 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 1227 - Deportable aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1227 Cited 8,037 times 41 Legal Analyses
Granting this discretion to the Attorney General
Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
8 U.S.C. § 1229b Cited 5,205 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”
Section 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1226 Cited 3,225 times 22 Legal Analyses
Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"

In re Rojas

44 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Holding that a facial challenger "must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid"

Holding that Government must show active employment of firearm to support § 924(c) conviction

Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

Holding that, in the immigration context, minors aged sixteen or seventeen are not "too young or too ignorant to exercise" their right to make a revocable waiver of a removal or deportation hearing

Holding that a person who sells a firearm "uses" it within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) "even though those actions do not involve using the firearm as a weapon"

Holding that § 636(b)(B) allows nonconsensual referral to magistrate judges to enter reports and recommendations on all "actions for monetary or injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983"

Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute

Holding that an adherent was not entitled to challenge a third party's actions that offended his beliefs

Holding that, "[a]bsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute, these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face"

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”

Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"