§
In re D-A-C

16 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Bessemer City

    470 U.S. 564 (1985)   Cited 10,958 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous

  2. Moncrieffe v. Holder

    569 U.S. 184 (2013)   Cited 1,384 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sharing marijuana not an aggravated felony

  3. Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

    543 U.S. 335 (2005)   Cited 437 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress could not have ratified a “settled construction” of a statute, because there was no “judicial consensus so broad and unquestioned that we must presume Congress knew of and endorsed it”

  4. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu

    138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)   Cited 261 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "any" carries "an expansive meaning"

  5. INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang

    519 U.S. 26 (1996)   Cited 225 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once an agency announces and follows a general policy, "an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as 'arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act"

  6. United States v. Juwa

    508 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 74 times
    Holding the district court's recitation of Section 3553 factors in its Statement of Reasons was "not objectionable," despite this Court's "preference that the reasons be tied to the facts of the case"

  7. Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that "simply because the Secretary has the ultimate discretionary authority to grant an immigration benefit does not mean that every determination ... regarding an alien's application for that benefit is discretionary, and hence not subject to review"

  8. Padmore v. Holder

    609 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the BIA relied on "impermissible appellate factfinding" when it "reverse[d] the IJ . . . based on disputed material facts with respect to which the IJ reached no resolution"

  9. Rojas v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S.

    728 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to be removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(B), the statute of conviction must be under a law relating to a controlled substance, and involve a drug defined in the Controlled Substances Act

  10. Carcamo v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

    498 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that the mere talismanic invocation of the Due Process Clause does not place a petitioner's claim within § 1252(D)

  11. Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

    8 U.S.C. § 1252   Cited 43,429 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

  12. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,950 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  13. Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,213 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”

  14. Section 1254a - Temporary protected status

    8 U.S.C. § 1254a   Cited 246 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting the right to live and work in the United States to citizens of designated countries afflicted by war, natural disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions

  15. Section 244.2 - Eligibility

    8 C.F.R. § 244.2   Cited 62 times
    Granting certain aliens temporary protected status