Case Summary
**Case Summary: Fredric Mance, Jr. v. Loretta Lynch, Docket Number 3026256**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals
**Date:** [Insert Date of Ruling]
**Docket Number:** 3026256
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff/Appellant:** Fredric Mance, Jr.
- **Defendant/Appellee:** Loretta Lynch, in her capacity as the Attorney General of the United States
**Background:**
Fredric Mance, Jr. brought a legal action against Loretta Lynch, challenging a decision related to the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Mance, who was previously subject to removal proceedings, raised claims that his rights were violated under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
**Issues:**
The central issues in this case involved:
1. Whether Mance was entitled to judicial review of the decisions made by immigration authorities.
2. The legality of the actions taken by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the relevant statutes and regulations.
3. The interpretation of procedural rights guaranteed under the APA and the INA.
**Arguments:**
- **For the Appellant (Mance):** Mance argued that the federal government's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and not in compliance with established legal procedures. He contended that these actions violated his rights and that he was entitled to relief under the law.
- **For the Appellee (Lynch):** The government argued that Mance's claims were barred by statutory provisions that limit judicial review. The government maintained that their actions were within the scope of their authority and that Mance had not exhausted all administrative remedies.
**Holding:**
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Loretta Lynch. The decision affirmed that Mance's claims were not subject to judicial review pursuant to the limitations set forth in the INA, and that he had failed to demonstrate that his procedural rights were violated.
**Conclusion:**
The ruling emphasized the restrictions on judicial oversight in immigration matters, particularly regarding the discretionary decisions made by the executive branch. Mance's request for relief was denied, upholding the government's position and confirming the existing legal framework governing immigration enforcement.
**Significance:**
This case reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review concerning immigration enforcement actions and highlights the importance of adhering to administrative processes before seeking recourse in court.
**Note:** For detailed legal reasoning and full court opinions, please refer to the official court documents associated with this case.