Meng Li v. Robert C. Eddy, District Director, Ins
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- M.S.P.C. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection (District Court, D. New Mexico 2014)
- American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Ashcroft (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2003)
- Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam v. Usdhs (9th Cir. 2019)
- Castro v. United States Department of Homeland Security (3d Cir. 2016)
- Padilla v. Garland (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2025)
- Dehghani v. Castro (District Court, D. New Mexico 2025)
- I.M. v. U.S Customs & Border Protection (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
- Vijender v. McAleenan (District Court, District of Columbia 2020)
- Mnatsakanyan v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
- Cortland v. Pierce County (District Court, W.D. Washington 2020)
- Mehla v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2019)
- Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2018)
- Castro v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2016)
- Kabenga v. Holder (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- United States v. Guzman (District Court, D. Oregon 2015)
- United States v. Gorbatenko (District Court, D. Oregon 2015)
- Smith v. United States Customs & Border Protection (9th Cir. 2014)
- Smith v. United States Customs & Border Protection (District Court, W.D. Washington 2011)
- Khan v. Holder (7th Cir. 2010)
- Birdsell v. Roca (In re Roca) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona 2009)
- Garcia De Rincon v. Department of Homeland SEC. (9th Cir. 2008)
- De Rincon v. Homeland Security (9th Cir. 2008)
- Vaupel v. Ortiz (10th Cir. 2007)
- Vaupel v. Ortiz (10th Cir. 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Meng LI, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Robert C. EDDY, District Director, INS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 97-35814.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 7, 2003.
Margaret D. Stock, Esq., Lisa H. Donnelley, Stock & Moeller, LLC Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, Hugh G. Mullane, Esq., DOJ — Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, BEEZER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
After the filing of the Petition for Rehearing, we asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of mootness, because Li is no longer ineligible for reentry under the five-year bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i). Both parties contend that under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) Li may be permanently barred from reentry.
If, as the parties contend, Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) were to erect a permanent bar to reentry, the five-year bar under Section 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) would become meaningless. The parties' contention thus runs squarely against the canon of construction that courts interpret statutes so as not to render any section meaningless. See, e.g., Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 506, 120 S.Ct. 1608, 146 L.Ed.2d 561 (2000). Any remaining consequences of Li's original removal are too remote to defeat mootness. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14-15, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).
The majority of the panel has voted to vacate the earlier opinions and dismiss the appeal as moot.
The opinions reported at 259 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2001) are VACATED and the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
BEEZER, dissenting:
I am convinced that the case is not moot. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.