Citation network
Dada Vs. Mukasey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 16, 2008
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2007 Dada V. MukaseySearch
-
dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Dada v. MukaseySearch
-
Opinion of the Court Dada V. MukaseySearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-1181 Samson Taiwo Dada, Petitioner V. MichaelSearch
-
to withdraw his request for voluntary departure. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Dada v. GonzalesSearch
-
Fed. Appx. 425 (2006) (per curiam). Relying on its decision in Banda-Ortiz v. GonzalesSearch
-
and Fourth Circuits in concluding that there is no automatic tolling of the voluntary departure period. See Chedad v. GonzalesSearch
-
Dekoladenu v. GonzalesSearch
-
F. 3d 500 (CA4 2006). Four other Courts of Appeals have reached the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Kanivets v. GonzalesSearch
-
Sidikhouya v. GonzalesSearch
-
Azarte v. AshcroftSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Ugokwe v. UnitedSearch
-
States Atty. Gen. , 453 F. 3d 1325 (CA11 2006). We granted certiorari, see Dada v. KeislerSearch
-
they may stay voluntary departure pending consideration of a petition for review on the merits. See, e.g., Thapa v. GonzalesSearch
-
Obale v. AttorneySearch
-
CA3 2006). But see Ngarurih v. AshcroftSearch
-
see also Chew Hoy Quong v. WhiteSearch
-
judicial interference was deemed unwarranted. Wong Shong Been v. ProctorSearch
-
U. S. 642 , 650 (1974) (quoting Brown v. DuchesneSearch
-
see also Gozlon-Peretz v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting Crandon v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HeirsSearch
-
namely, the backlog of the particular Board member to whom the motion is assigned. Cf. United States v. WilsonSearch
-
This is particularly so when the plain text of the statute reveals no such limitation. See Costello v. INSSearch
-
see also Stone v. INSSearch
-
quoting INS v. Cardoza-FonsecaSearch
-
departure is the obligation to arrange for departure, and actually depart, within the 60-day period. Cf. United States v. BrockampSearch
-
U. S. 473 , 497 (2002) (citing United States v. MeadSearch
-
Corp. , 533 U. S. 218 (2001), and Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. ShalalaSearch
-
of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Dada v. MukaseySearch
-
Scalia, J., Dissenting Dada V. MukaseySearch
-
adopt, as we must, the best reading of a statute, but merely one that is permissible. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
s failure to specify a reason. He has argued only that the statute requires that he be allowed to withdraw. Dada v. MukaseySearch
-
a voluntary departure request, the authority to make that policy choice rests with the agency. See, e.g., Smiley v. CitibankSearch
-
Department of Treasury, IRS v. FLRASearch
-
Samson Taiwo Dada, Petitioner V. MichaelSearch
-
Dada v. GonzalesSearch
-
Banda-Ortiz v. GonzalesSearch
-
See Chedad v. GonzalesSearch
-
Kanivets v. GonzalesSearch
-
Dada v. KeislerSearch
-
Thapa v. GonzalesSearch
-
Ngarurih v. AshcroftSearch
-
Chew Hoy Quong v. WhiteSearch
-
Wong Shong Been v. ProctorSearch
-
Brown v. DuchesneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial