In re Castrejon-Colino

18 Cited authorities

Tapia v. Gonzales
430 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 110 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner — who was merely turned away at the border when trying to reenter the United States after a brief departure, and who did not depart pursuant to a formalized process resulting in an agreement to depart and not to return unless in accordance with the legal entry process — did not interrupt his accrual of continuous physical presence
Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft
349 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 89 times
Holding that § 1252(B)'s "ban on review of `judgment regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions."
Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft
343 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an alien who commits to departure in order to avoid deportation proceedings is not entitled to continue accruing presence
Valadez-Munoz v. Holder
623 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where an applicant made the retraction only after being confronted with evidence of his misrepresentation, the applicant cannot take advantage of the timely recantation doctrine
Mendez-Reyes v. Attorney General of U.S.
428 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 47 times
Holding that when an alien withdrew his application for admission in lieu of formal determination of admissibility and departed, and signed a document to that effect, his period of physical presence terminated
Barrera–Quintero v. Holder
699 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2012) Cited 31 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Chevron deference extends to a nonprecedential, single-member BIA decision, as here, "if it relies on prior BIA precedent addressing the same question" (quoting Efagene v. Holder , 642 F.3d 918, 920 (10th Cir. 2011) )
Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft
384 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 38 times
Holding that the meaning of the term continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal is a nondiscretionary question of statutory interpretation
Vasquez v. Holder
635 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2011) Cited 23 times
Applying Chevron deference to the BIA's interpretation of its own statutes
Reyes-Vasquez v. Ashcroft
395 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2005) Cited 26 times
Holding that an alien who had been present in the United States since 1984 and returned to Mexico for two weeks in 1990 to attend to his ailing grandfather did not break the continuity of his presence by simply being turned around at the border upon his attempted reentry
Ascencio-Rodriguez v. Holder
595 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 12 times 1 Legal Analyses
Docket No. 08-3058-ag. Argued: May 8, 2009. Decided: February 17, 2010. Appeal from the petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT, for Petitioner Jesus Ascencio-Rodriguez. Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on the brief), United States Department of
Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
8 U.S.C. § 1229b Cited 5,205 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”
Section 1225 - Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing
8 U.S.C. § 1225 Cited 1,301 times 16 Legal Analyses
Setting standard for credible fear as "a significant possibility, taking into account the ... statements made by the alien ... and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum"
Section 235.3 - Inadmissible aliens and expedited removal
8 C.F.R. § 235.3 Cited 222 times
Governing expedited removal proceedings and "credible fear" interviews

In re Castrejon-Colino

18 Cited authorities

Holding that § 1252(B)'s "ban on review of `judgment regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions."

Holding that an alien who commits to departure in order to avoid deportation proceedings is not entitled to continue accruing presence

Holding that where an applicant made the retraction only after being confronted with evidence of his misrepresentation, the applicant cannot take advantage of the timely recantation doctrine

Holding that when an alien withdrew his application for admission in lieu of formal determination of admissibility and departed, and signed a document to that effect, his period of physical presence terminated

Holding that Chevron deference extends to a nonprecedential, single-member BIA decision, as here, "if it relies on prior BIA precedent addressing the same question" (quoting Efagene v. Holder , 642 F.3d 918, 920 (10th Cir. 2011) )

Holding that the meaning of the term continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal is a nondiscretionary question of statutory interpretation

Applying Chevron deference to the BIA's interpretation of its own statutes

Holding that an alien who had been present in the United States since 1984 and returned to Mexico for two weeks in 1990 to attend to his ailing grandfather did not break the continuity of his presence by simply being turned around at the border upon his attempted reentry

Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”

Setting standard for credible fear as "a significant possibility, taking into account the ... statements made by the alien ... and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum"

Governing expedited removal proceedings and "credible fear" interviews