14 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,041 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
Demore v. Kim
538 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 1,684 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 (1987) Cited 2,396 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach
523 U.S. 26 (1998) Cited 853 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the remand requirement is absolute, the transferee court may not invoke the change-of-venue statute to assign transferred cases to itself for trial
Rust v. Sullivan
500 U.S. 173 (1991) Cited 867 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "longstanding" agency interpretation was no longer entitled to Chevron deference given that the agency had changed its position on the issue
Saysana v. Gillen
590 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2009) Cited 93 times
Holding that § 1226(c) is not triggered until an alien is released from custody for having committed an offense specified in subparagraphs-(D), as opposed to being triggered by release from any type of criminal custody
Quezada-Bucio v. Ridge
317 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (W.D. Wash. 2004) Cited 74 times
Holding that “the mandatory detention statute, I NA § 236(c), does not apply to aliens who have been taken into immigration custody several months or years after they have been released from state custody”
Khodr v. Adduci
697 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Mich. 2010) Cited 54 times
Holding that "[b]ecause the Court finds that the statute at issue clearly and unambiguously requires the Attorney General to take into custody certain aliens without delay in order to make applicable the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the Court does not defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to the contrary in Matter of Rojas"
United States v. Jin Fuey Moy
241 U.S. 394 (1916) Cited 261 times
Stating that a statute must be interpreted to avoid constitutional doubt if reasonably possible
Alikhani v. Fasano
70 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (S.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 49 times
Holding that § 1226(c) does not apply retroactively to persons who were released from custody prior to the effective date of the mandatory detention provision, and does not address whether physical custody is a requirement for the statute to apply
Section 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1226 Cited 3,173 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"

Quiroz-Trejo v. Rivera

14 Cited authorities

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

Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause

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

Holding that, because the remand requirement is absolute, the transferee court may not invoke the change-of-venue statute to assign transferred cases to itself for trial

Holding that a "longstanding" agency interpretation was no longer entitled to Chevron deference given that the agency had changed its position on the issue

Holding that § 1226(c) is not triggered until an alien is released from custody for having committed an offense specified in subparagraphs-(D), as opposed to being triggered by release from any type of criminal custody

Holding that “the mandatory detention statute, I NA § 236(c), does not apply to aliens who have been taken into immigration custody several months or years after they have been released from state custody”

Stating that a statute must be interpreted to avoid constitutional doubt if reasonably possible

Holding that § 1226(c) does not apply retroactively to persons who were released from custody prior to the effective date of the mandatory detention provision, and does not address whether physical custody is a requirement for the statute to apply

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"