United States Department of State v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, Et Al. v. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS, INC., Et Al.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of § 633 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (enacted as Division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-701).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that U.S. resident sponsors had standing to challenge the State Department’s refusal to process visa applications)
-
(holding that U.S. resident sponsors had standing to challenge DOS's refusal to process visa applications because the prolonged separation of immediate family members resulted in injury to the sponsors)
-
(“[W]e may affirm a [trial] court’s decision on different grounds than those employed by the [trial] court[,]”)
-
(“There is, accordingly, no question that propensity would be an ‘improper basis’ 2 for conviction.”)
-
(“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”)
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump
- State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump
- Entergy Services, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Southern Company Services, Inc.
- Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam County
- Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
- Matushkina v. Nielsen
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.