# Arar v. Ashcroft

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · November 2, 2009 · 585 F.3d 559

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413298

## Case

- **Full name:** Maher ARAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Larry D. Thompson, Formerly Acting Deputy Attorney General, Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, J. Scott Blackman, Formerly Regional Director of the Regional Office of Immigration and Naturalization Services, Paula Corrigan, Regional Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Edward J. McElroy, Formerly District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Services for New York District, and Now Customs Enforcement, Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Doe 1-10, Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Immigration and Naturalization Service Agents, and James W. Ziglar, Formerly Commissioner for Immigration and Naturalization Services, United States, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** November 2, 2009
- **Citations:** 585 F.3d 559; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23988; 2009 WL 3522887
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Calabresi
- **Judges:** Jacobs, McLaughlin, Cabranes, Pooler, Sack, Sotomayor, Parker, Raggi, Wesley, Hall, Livingston, Katzmann, Calabresi
- **Cited by:** 326 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Jesus Hernandez v. USA, 757 F.3d 249 (2014).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413298

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “any reliance on the [Immigration and Nationality Act] as an alternative remedial scheme presents difficulties” because the alien “alleged that he was actively prevented from seeking any meaningful review and relief through the [Immigration and Nationality Act]…
- stating that “complexity” of remedial immigration scheme created (and frequently amended) by Congress would ordinarily warrant “strong inference that Congress intended the judiciary to stay its hand and refrain from creating a Bivens action in this context”
- stating that it was difficult in the context presented to determine if the INA provided an alternative remedial scheme, but declining to extend Bivens to the context of extraordinary rendition of an alien because of special factors counseling hesitation
- explaining that “federal system of checks and balances provides means to consider allegedly unconstitutional execu-five policy, but a [judicially created] private action for money damages against individual policymakers is not one of them”
- explaining that “federal system of checks and balances provides means to consider allegedly unconstitutional executive policy, but a [judicially created] private action for money damages against individual policymakers is not one of them”

## Opinion text

CALABRESI, POOLER, SACK, and PARKER, Circuit Judges,
dissent.
Each joins fully in all the dissenting opinions, but each writes separately to emphasize particular aspects of these dissents.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413298. Public record. Not legal advice.