Arbelaez v. Newcomb

D.C. Circuit

Arbelaez v. Newcomb

1 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

DocketNo. 00-5217

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 F. App'x 1 (Arbelaez v. Newcomb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arbelaez v. Newcomb, 1 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 16, 2000 be affirmed. Appellants are foreign nationals without a substantial connection to the United States; they therefore lack standing to bring a challenge under Article I, Section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) (“[A]liens receive constitutional protections [only] when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.”); People’s Mojahedin Organization v. Dept. of State, 182 F.3d 17, 22 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“A foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights, under the due process clause or otherwise.”).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 16, 2000 be affirmed. Appellants are foreign nationals without a substantial connection to the United States; they therefore lack standing to bring a challenge under Article I, Section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) (“[A]liens receive constitutional protections [only] when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.”); People’s Mojahedin Organization v. Dept. of State, 182 F.3d 17, 22 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“A foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights, under the due process clause or otherwise.”).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbelaez-v-newcomb-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack