# Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 2001 · 533 U.S. 289

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434126

## Case

- **Full name:** Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 2001
- **Citations:** 533 U.S. 289; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 401; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 6475; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3473; 69 U.S.L.W. 4510; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5235; 121 S. Ct. 2271; 150 L. Ed. 2d 347; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4670
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Scalia, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor, Scaiia, Rehnquist, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 3,611 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Nasrallah v. Barr.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 7
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434126

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a § 212(c) waiver remains 1 Thereafter, the allegations were considered conceded without objection. 2 In his § 212(c) application, he stated that it was his 1993 conviction that rendered him removable, and that his 1997 conviction, which was a disorderly persons o…
- holding that 26 27 2 Petitioner filed a verified habeas petition. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) A court “may treat the allegations of a verified . . . petition [for writ of habeas corpus] as an affidavit.” L. v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 28 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing McElyea v. Babbitt, 83…
- explaining that held that denying some aliens the opportunity to apply for a although § 212(c) on its face only ap plies to exclusion proceedings, it had waiver of deportation pursuant to § 212(c) of the INA has an been interpreted as allowing lawful permanent residents to see…
- recognizing that IIRIRA had an impermissible retroactive effect insofar as it deprived a convicted alien of his eligibility for suspension, of deportation because alien had pleaded guilty — and thereby surrendered substantive rights — based on his expectation that by doing so …
- holding that a statute attaching new immigration consequences to a guilty plea did not apply retroactively in part because “[tjhere can be little doubt that, as a general matter, alien defendants considering whether to enter into a plea agreement are acutely aware of the immig…

## Opinion text

Justice O’Connor,
dissenting.
I join Parts I and III of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in this case. I do not join Part II because I believe that, assuming, arguendo, that the Suspension Clause guarantees some minimum extent of habeas review, the right asserted by the alien in this case falls outside the scope of that review for the reasons explained by Justice Scalia in Part II-B of his dissenting opinion. The question whether the Suspension Clause assures habeas jurisdiction in this particular case properly is resolved on this ground alone, and there is no need to say more.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434126. Public record. Not legal advice.