Waldron v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

How later courts describe this case

• holding that the focus of the Court must be on whether plaintiffs complaint states any valid ground for relief
• holding that rights under Vienna Convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights, such as the right to counsel
• holding that under Mantilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 168-69 (2d Cir.1991), a “per se error” rule applies when an INS violation of its own regulations denies an alien’s right to counsel
• “when a regulation is promulgated to protect a fundamental right derived from the Constitution or a federal statute, and the INS fails to adhere to it, the challenged deportation proceeding is invalid and a remand to the agency is required”