In re R-A-M

17 Cited authorities

Osborne v. Ohio
495 U.S. 103 (1990) Cited 749 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "under the circumstances, nothing would be gained" by requiring adherence to a procedural rule for preserving an argument after the trial court "in no uncertain terms" had already rejected the argument once before
Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder
558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 190 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Chevron deference applies to published decisions but Skidmore deference applies to unpublished decisions
U.S. v. Daniels
541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 158 times
Holding that district court "did not plainly err in limiting [defendant's] possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct because the condition furthered the goals of rehabilitating him and protecting the public where defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography and could `slip into old habits of amassing child pornography'"
Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder
363 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 127 times
Holding the BIA can rely on "all reliable information" when making a particularly serious crime determination
Delgado v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 117 times
Holding that § 1158(b)(B) "does not require the Attorney General to anticipate every adjudication by promulgating a regulation covering each particular crime"
U.S. v. Yuknavich
419 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 89 times
Holding search of probationer's computer by probation officers was reasonable, even in absence of a search provision, when conditions on probationer's computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer
Kankamalage v. I.N.S.
335 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 80 times
Observing that a regulation may not apply retroactively unless it “unambiguously directs retroactive application”
N-A-M v. Holder
587 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 28 times
Holding that "Congress's use of two different terms—‘particularly serious’ crime and ‘aggravated’ felony—is additionally indicative of substantively different meanings"
Zhan Gao v. Holder
595 F.3d 549 (4th Cir. 2010) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting the view that "regulation is the exclusive means by which the Attorney General can determine that a non-aggravated felony is a particularly serious crime" because, among other things, "requiring an agency to proceed by rulemaking alone could stultify the administrative process by rendering it inflexible and incapable of dealing with many of the specialized problems which arise"
U.S. v. Stevens
197 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 12 times
Reversing where district court examined the harms Congress sought to address and "then decid[ed] the extent to which Defendant contributed to those harms"
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,836 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 10,754 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,979 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 8,019 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 2252 - Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors
18 U.S.C. § 2252 Cited 6,555 times 33 Legal Analyses
Punishing one who “knowingly sells or possesses” child pornography
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,463 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”

In re R-A-M

17 Cited authorities

Holding that, "under the circumstances, nothing would be gained" by requiring adherence to a procedural rule for preserving an argument after the trial court "in no uncertain terms" had already rejected the argument once before

Holding that Chevron deference applies to published decisions but Skidmore deference applies to unpublished decisions

Holding the BIA can rely on "all reliable information" when making a particularly serious crime determination

Holding that § 1158(b)(B) "does not require the Attorney General to anticipate every adjudication by promulgating a regulation covering each particular crime"

Holding search of probationer's computer by probation officers was reasonable, even in absence of a search provision, when conditions on probationer's computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer

Observing that a regulation may not apply retroactively unless it “unambiguously directs retroactive application”

Holding that "Congress's use of two different terms—‘particularly serious’ crime and ‘aggravated’ felony—is additionally indicative of substantively different meanings"

Reversing where district court examined the harms Congress sought to address and "then decid[ed] the extent to which Defendant contributed to those harms"

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"

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

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

Punishing one who “knowingly sells or possesses” child pornography

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”