In re W.E.R.B.

13 Cited authorities

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre
526 U.S. 415 (1999) Cited 811 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the BIA has authority to interpret ambiguous statutes
Khouzam v. Ashcroft
361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 304 times
Holding that acquiescence "requires only that government officials know of or remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their legal responsibility to prevent it"
Barapind v. Enomoto
400 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 154 times
Holding that a panel majority's decision concerning an issue presented for review is circuit law even if that decision was not necessary to the disposition of the case
Go v. Holder
431 F. App'x 557 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 88 times
Holding that "removal order did not become final until the Board rejected all claims"
Jiang Guan v. Barr
925 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2019) Cited 36 times
Holding that the "serious reasons" standard is essentially a probable cause standard and a nonpolitical crime is one "that was not committed out of genuine political motives"
United States v. Mohamud
843 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 2016) Cited 35 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no entrapment, as defendant “made the initial suggestion to fill a car with explosives near a target location” before undercover agent “suggested criminal activity”
Ze Bei Zheng v. Holder
698 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2012) Cited 10 times
In Zheng, we held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding of serious reasons to believe petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical crime when petitioner admitted that he lay in wait for a Chinese official who refused to return property seized during enforcement of China's family planning policies, and "beat the official with a stick until he was bloody, resulting in 'a very serious injury.' "
Tatintsyan v. Barr
No. 18-71056 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2020)
No. 18-71056 02-12-2020 ARAM TATINTSYAN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. NOT FOR PUBLICATION Agency No. A208-418-612 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 16, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and CHEN, District Judge. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The Honorable Edward
McMullen v. I.N.S.
788 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 29 times
Holding "random acts of violence" against "ordinary citizens" to be insufficiently linked to their political objectives and to be, "by virtue of their primary targets, so barbarous atrocious and disproportionate to their political objectives that they constitute 'serious nonpolitical crimes'"
Section 1158 - Asylum
8 U.S.C. § 1158 Cited 10,674 times 6 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 9,910 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,401 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 1240.8 - Burdens of proof in removal proceedings
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 Cited 312 times 4 Legal Analyses
Applying "clearly and beyond doubt" burden to "proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival" or "[a]liens present in the United States without being admitted"

In re W.E.R.B.

13 Cited authorities

Holding that the BIA has authority to interpret ambiguous statutes

Holding that acquiescence "requires only that government officials know of or remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their legal responsibility to prevent it"

Holding that a panel majority's decision concerning an issue presented for review is circuit law even if that decision was not necessary to the disposition of the case

Holding that "removal order did not become final until the Board rejected all claims"

Holding that the "serious reasons" standard is essentially a probable cause standard and a nonpolitical crime is one "that was not committed out of genuine political motives"

Finding no entrapment, as defendant “made the initial suggestion to fill a car with explosives near a target location” before undercover agent “suggested criminal activity”

Holding "random acts of violence" against "ordinary citizens" to be insufficiently linked to their political objectives and to be, "by virtue of their primary targets, so barbarous atrocious and disproportionate to their political objectives that they constitute 'serious nonpolitical crimes'"

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"

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”

Applying "clearly and beyond doubt" burden to "proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival" or "[a]liens present in the United States without being admitted"