§
In re R.A.F.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Negusie v. Holder

    555 U.S. 511 (2009)   Cited 215 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Fedorenko's rule that voluntariness is irrelevant to culpability with respect to the DPA's persecutor bar need not be applied to the analogous INA persecutor bar

  2. Myrie v. Attorney Gen. U.S.

    855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017)   Cited 173 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "[i]f the [BIA] relies only on some of the grounds given for denying relief, we review only those grounds"

  3. Pierre v. Gonzales

    502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is non-self-executing

  4. Auguste v. Ridge

    395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a showing of "specific intent" to cause severe pain and suffering is required to establish torture and rejecting as dicta contrary statements in Zubeda

  5. Turkson v. Holder

    667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2012)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that “the BIA committed error as a matter of law because it failed to apply the appropriate standard of review”

  6. Villegas v. Mukasey

    523 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that the petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture where, although "a variety of evidence showed that Mexican mental patients [were] housed in terrible squalor, nothing indicate[d] that Mexican officials (or private actors to whom officials ha[d] acquiesced) created these conditions for the specific purpose of inflicting suffering upon the patients"

  7. Htun v. Lynch

    818 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2016)   Cited 40 times
    Holding we can reverse the BIA's findings of fact under the asylum substantial-evidence test only if "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary"

  8. Ting Xue v. Lynch

    841 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016)   Cited 33 times
    Declining to decide the issue, because it had not properly been raised in the petition for review

  9. Cruz-Quintanilla v. Whitaker

    914 F.3d 884 (4th Cir. 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that an IJ makes a factual prediction as to what would likely happen upon removal of the applicant, including how public officials will likely respond to the harm the petitioner fears, which is reviewed for clear error, and the BIA only determines de novo whether the IJ's predictive facts rise to the level of acquiescence defined in the regulations

  10. Oxygene v. Lynch

    813 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2016)   Cited 7 times
    Adopting intent standard for CAT claims as announced in In re J-E-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 291 (B.I.A. 2002)

  11. Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

    8 U.S.C. § 1252   Cited 43,261 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

  12. Section 1158 - Asylum

    8 U.S.C. § 1158   Cited 10,672 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"

  13. Section 1208.17 - Deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture

    8 C.F.R. § 1208.17   Cited 398 times
    Stating that for an alien to be eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT, they must "ha[ve] been found under § 1208.16(c) to be entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture"