§
In re A-B-

5 Cited authorities

  1. Securities Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.

    332 U.S. 194 (1947)   Cited 4,197 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if the agency rests its decision on "grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co.

    416 U.S. 267 (1974)   Cited 759 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"

  3. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr

    938 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2019)   Cited 170 times
    Holding that " A-B- was not arbitrary and capricious"

  4. Scarlett v. Barr

    957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that Matter of A-B- did not heighten an applicant's burden to demonstrate that the government was "unable or unwilling" to control a persecutor but merely clarified it

  5. Grace v. Barr

    965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that section 1252(f) "refers only to ‘the operation of the provisions’ -- i.e., the statutory provisions themselves, and thus places no restriction on the district court's authority to enjoin agency action found to be unlawful"