§
In re O-M-O

20 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Bessemer City

    470 U.S. 564 (1985)   Cited 10,752 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous

  2. Siewe v. Gonzales

    480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 808 times
    Holding that we defer to the IJ as the finder of fact "[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence"

  3. Dankam v. Gonzales

    495 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 123 times
    Concluding that inconsistent dates regarding an arrest could support an adverse credibility finding

  4. Kumar v. Gonzales

    444 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 118 times
    Holding that an adverse credibility finding was improperly based on conjecture when the Immigration Judge determined that it was incredible that the petitioner would not know his brother's whereabouts despite their having fled India together

  5. Djadjou v. Holder

    662 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2011)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that an alien's omission of "her purported leadership role lay at the heart of her claims of past persecution" because she alleged her leadership role was the reason for her persecution

  6. Ilunga v. Holder

    777 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2015)   Cited 53 times
    Recognizing that bona fide victims of persecution may struggle to remain composed during testimony

  7. Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales

    416 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that "when the Attorney General decides that the alien's offense was a `particularly serious crime,' we lack jurisdiction to review such a decision because it is discretionary"

  8. Niang v. Mukasey

    511 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that "IJ's rejection of [petitioner's] explanation for the provenance of the [refugee identity card] does not comport with our requirement that the agency give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner's testimony."

  9. Lin v. Gonzales

    434 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Rejecting "speculation as to what [a foreign] document should look like"

  10. Onsongo v. Gonzales

    457 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2006)   Cited 32 times

    No. 05-3926. Submitted: June 16, 2006. Filed: August 10, 2006. Petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals. Barton C. Winter, Minneapolis, MN, for petition. Lonnie F. Bryan, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent. Before SMITH, HEANEY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Maricella Bosibore Onsongo, a citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of Onsongo's application

  11. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,323 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”

  12. Section 1324d - Civil penalties for failure to depart

    8 U.S.C. § 1324d   Cited 16 times
    Providing civil penalties for similar conduct

  13. Section 280.53 - Civil monetary penalties inflation adjustment

    8 C.F.R. § 280.53   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Statutory authority. In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410 , 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74 , Sec. 701 , 129 Stat . 599, the civil monetary penalties listed in paragraph (b) of this section are adjusted as provided in paragraph (b). (b)Adjustment of penalties. For violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, the