Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that court of appeals has jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reopen where underlying deportation order issued pursuant to INA &#167 241(a)(2)
• holding that the court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under 241(a)(2) of the INA, which is not one of the enumerated sections listed in 309(c)(4)(E)
• recognizing that under section 240A(d)(1) a respondent “might sat- isfy the continuous physical presence requirement by virtue of the fact that she has accrued twelve years of continuous physical presence since the INS issued her an order to show cause”
• stating that the \BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to state its reasons and show proper consideration of all factors when weighing equities and denying relief\ (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)
• stating that the “BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to state its reasons and show proper consideration of all factors when weighing equi- ties and denying relief” (internal quotation marks and empha- sis omitted)
• The “BIA cannot just waive [sic] aside [Arrozales favorable factors merely because she failed to report for deportation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).