Holding that whether petitioner had “met her burden of demonstrating changed circumstances materially affecting asylum eligibility or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay challenges [the Attorney General's] exercise of discretion” and therefore “[s]uch a claim does not raise a constitutional claim or question of law covered by the REAL ID Act's judicial review provision”
Holding that the law of the case should not be overturned "absent 'cogent' and 'compelling' reasons such as 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice'" (quoting United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000))
Holding that Petitioner's due process rights were violated where the IJ approached the petitioner with "belligerence" and "wholesale nitpicking of [his] testimony"
Holding that the presumption of reliability afforded to a Form I-213 is lost when a petitioner introduces evidence contradicting statements in the form or undermining its reliability
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,616 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"