In re L-A-C

21 Cited authorities

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
519 U.S. 337 (1997) Cited 2,531 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII
Shrestha v. Holder
590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 1,768 times
Holding that adverse credibility determinations must be based on "specific and cogent reasons" supported by "specific instances in the record that support a conclusion that the factor undermines credibility."
INS v. Bagamasbad
429 U.S. 24 (1976) Cited 841 times
Holding no requirement "to arrive at purely advisory findings and conclusions as to statutory eligibility" for immigration relief when application fails for other reasons
Aden v. Holder
589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 902 times
Holding that the court reviews only the BIA decision where the BIA wrote its own decision and did not adopt the immigration judge's decision
Ren v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 430 times
Holding that the plain language of the statute shows that the applicant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to corroborate
Ladha v. I.N.S.
215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 304 times
Holding that an IJ may not require corroborative evidence from an otherwise credible applicant
Liu v. Holder
575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 216 times
Holding that "the alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the IJ"
Zhi v. Holder
751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 171 times
Holding that the IJ's suspicions about the petitioner's type of visa were speculation because the IJ "never questioned [the petitioner] on the matter" or sought "an explanation that might have clarified the matter"
Chukwu v. Attorney General
484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 174 times
Holding that IJ "failed to take into account relevant and persuasive evidence that would not only explain the alleged inconsistencies, but would also support [the petitioner's] allegations of . . . persecution."
Rui Yang v. Holder
664 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 95 times
Determining that a petitioner's argument to this court that the IJ abused its discretion by failing to grant a continuance was not exhausted by petitioner's statement to the BIA that he might have known to provide certain evidence if he had the benefit of lawyer
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,770 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
Section 1158 - Asylum
8 U.S.C. § 1158 Cited 10,712 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"
Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 7,991 times 13 Legal Analyses
Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,428 times 8 Legal Analyses
Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”
Section 1003.29 - Continuances
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 Cited 664 times 1 Legal Analyses
Authorizing continuances
Section 1208.2 - Jurisdiction
8 C.F.R. § 1208.2 Cited 78 times 1 Legal Analyses
Limiting withholding proceedings to a determination of eligibility for "withholding or deferral of removal," and noting that all parties are barred from "raising or considering any other issues"

In re L-A-C

21 Cited authorities

Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII

Holding that adverse credibility determinations must be based on "specific and cogent reasons" supported by "specific instances in the record that support a conclusion that the factor undermines credibility."

Holding no requirement "to arrive at purely advisory findings and conclusions as to statutory eligibility" for immigration relief when application fails for other reasons

Holding that the court reviews only the BIA decision where the BIA wrote its own decision and did not adopt the immigration judge's decision

Holding that the plain language of the statute shows that the applicant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to corroborate

Holding that an IJ may not require corroborative evidence from an otherwise credible applicant

Holding that "the alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the IJ"

Holding that the IJ's suspicions about the petitioner's type of visa were speculation because the IJ "never questioned [the petitioner] on the matter" or sought "an explanation that might have clarified the matter"

Holding that IJ "failed to take into account relevant and persuasive evidence that would not only explain the alleged inconsistencies, but would also support [the petitioner's] allegations of . . . persecution."

Determining that a petitioner's argument to this court that the IJ abused its discretion by failing to grant a continuance was not exhausted by petitioner's statement to the BIA that he might have known to provide certain evidence if he had the benefit of lawyer

Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"

Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver

Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”

Authorizing continuances

Limiting withholding proceedings to a determination of eligibility for "withholding or deferral of removal," and noting that all parties are barred from "raising or considering any other issues"