Matter of X-M-C

7 Cited authorities

  1. Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    529 U.S. 120 (2000)   Cited 1,577 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress had not yet empowered the FDA to regulate tobacco products
  2. Barreto-Claro v. U.S. Attorney General

    275 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that although petitioner suffered employment discrimination, lost his job as a taxi driver, and was forced to take menial work, he was not persecuted
  3. Lazar v. Gonzales

    500 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that frivolousness finding is not mooted by withdrawal because “if that were the law, every petitioner seeking relief under the INA would have an incentive to lie in their submissions because there would be no penalties for doing so”
  4. Chen v. Mukasey

    527 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that “withdrawal of an asylum application does not obviate the need for an IJ to determine whether a false application should be deemed frivolous”
  5. Section 1158 - Asylum

    8 U.S.C. § 1158   Cited 10,716 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"
  6. Section 1208.20 - Determining if an asylum application is frivolous

    8 C.F.R. § 1208.20   Cited 127 times
    Defining a “frivolous” application as “deliberately fabricated”
  7. Section 1240.12 - Decision of the immigration judge

    8 C.F.R. § 1240.12   Cited 30 times

    (a)Contents. The decision of the immigration judge may be oral or written. The decision of the immigration judge shall include a finding as to inadmissibility or deportability. The formal enumeration of findings is not required. The decision shall also contain reasons for granting or denying the request. The decision shall be concluded with the order of the immigration judge. (b)Summary decision. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, in any case where inadmissibility or