Arout Melkonian v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an IJ’s aggressive and harsh questioning of a petitioner does not rise to the level of a due process violation
• concluding that attempt to forcibly recruit petitioner was “properly labeled ‘on account of’ his ethnicity” where army “specifically targeted Armenian men to conscript and send to the front line”
• noting that petitioner had shown both membership in disfavored group and an individualized threat of persecution
• explaining that failure to comply with the Lozada requirements is not dispositive where the ineffective assistance of counsel is plain on the face of the administrative record
• stating that “[t]he BIA must . . . follow the decisions of our court”
• noting that due process is not violated merely because cross-examination is carried out in a “harsh manner and tone” (quoting Antonio-Cruz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).