Tifow v. Mukasey

1 Citing case

  1. LI v. NAPOLITANO

    08 Civ. 7353 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that, while a "generic prayer for relief" does not "foreclose the possibility" of the Court granting relief "not specifically requested in the Complaint," it did not save the case from being moot where the plaintiff, who had filed a habeas petition to vacate an immigration decision and whose case had since been re-opened, was "essentially ask[ing] th[e] Court to dictate in advance how the [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] should exercise its discretion and to preclude it from considering an issue before it has even indicated that it will consider the issue"

    Prayer for Relief ΒΆ 3.) The plaintiff claims that the Court has the authority to grant such a remand, citing Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 164 (2d Cir. 2002; Jiang v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, No. 03-40297, 2007 WL 642961, at *2 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2007); andTifow v. Mukasey, 303 Fed. Appx. 377, 378-79 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff also asserts that such a remand is consistent with federal courts' hostility to post hoc rationalizations.