Ana Maria Hengan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• criticizing similar finding as irrelevant—“the Ceausescu regime did not arrest Hengan, but in 1991 the police harassed her weekly”
• remanding where IJ's opinion did not respond to the applicant's contentions, observing that \[a]gencies must respond to the arguments made to them and avoid decisions based on irrelevancies.\
• vacating and remanding denial of asylum where IJ’s focus on facts irrelevant to petitioner’s claim suggested that IJ misunder- stood arguments altogether
• vacating, despite the presence of evidence in favor of the Agency that would “ordinarily . . . lead[] a reviewing court to affirm,” on the grounds that the IJ took into account irrelevant facts and did not properly consider the applicant’s arguments
• vacating, despite the presence of evidence in favor of the Agency that would “[o]rdinarily . . . lead[ ] a reviewing court to affirm,” on the grounds that the IJ took into account irrelevant facts and did not properly consider the appli- cant’s arguments
• persecution found where applicant, a Romanian of Hungarian descent, received repeated, personal threats and authorities did nothing to protect her but instead began interrogating her weekly

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).