In the Matter of Fedorenko

29 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,294 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
United States v. Mendoza
464 U.S. 154 (1984) Cited 581 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party
Woodby v. Immigration Service
385 U.S. 276 (1966) Cited 753 times
Holding that "no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true"
Fedorenko v. United States
449 U.S. 490 (1981) Cited 463 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Government carries a heavy burden of proof in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship" because "loss [of citizenship] can have severe and unsettling consequences"
Yates v. United States
354 U.S. 298 (1957) Cited 957 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conviction must be reversed if the evidence in the record supports a legally impermissible ground as well as a legally permissible one and "it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected"
United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
464 U.S. 165 (1984) Cited 277 times
Holding that "the doctrine of mutual defensive collateral estoppel is applicable against the government to preclude relitigation of the same issue already litigated against the same party in another case involving virtually identical facts."
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
339 U.S. 33 (1950) Cited 446 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Administrative Procedure Act required deportation hearings even though current INS regulations did not
Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
375 U.S. 217 (1963) Cited 265 times
Holding second-step judgments reviewable "for arbitrariness and abuse of discretion"
Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co.
297 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1961) Cited 260 times
Finding that issue preclusion barred the relitigation of a court determination after a divorce that the marital home would be sold by a trustee rather than subject to partition
McMullen v. Imm. Naturalization Serv
658 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 86 times
Noting that refugees fleeing political persecution are often limited in the evidence they can submit to support their claims
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 43,236 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,702 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,903 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,159 times 1 Legal Analyses
Delineating crimes that make alien deportable
Section 1254 - Repealed
8 U.S.C. § 1254 Cited 1,132 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing suspension-of-deportation eligibility

In the Matter of Fedorenko

29 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party

Holding that "no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true"

Holding that "the Government carries a heavy burden of proof in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship" because "loss [of citizenship] can have severe and unsettling consequences"

Holding that a conviction must be reversed if the evidence in the record supports a legally impermissible ground as well as a legally permissible one and "it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected"

Holding that "the doctrine of mutual defensive collateral estoppel is applicable against the government to preclude relitigation of the same issue already litigated against the same party in another case involving virtually identical facts."

Holding that Administrative Procedure Act required deportation hearings even though current INS regulations did not

Holding second-step judgments reviewable "for arbitrariness and abuse of discretion"

Finding that issue preclusion barred the relitigation of a court determination after a divorce that the marital home would be sold by a trustee rather than subject to partition

Noting that refugees fleeing political persecution are often limited in the evidence they can submit to support their claims

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

Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

Describing suspension-of-deportation eligibility