Abou Cham v. Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

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

• 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 IJ denied applicant due process because, inter alia, he refused to consider corroborating evidence and refused to continue the hearing in order to allow the testimony of additional witnesses
• holding that the IJ denied applicant due process because, inter alia, he refused to consider corroborating evidence and refused to continue the hearing in order to allow the testimony of additional witnesses
• concluding that the IJ, who chastised the alien for “just delaying everything” by testifying in English and warned him to “come up with an answer pretty quickly” or risk being found nonresponsive, violated due process
• finding that IJ “continually abused an increasingly distraught petitioner,” including by repeated commands to speak through the interpreter
• stating that such terms are “not merely advisory or aspirational” and that an alien is “entitled, as a matter of due process, to a full and fair hearing on his application”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).