Biuma Claudine Malu v. U.S. 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 the IJ and BIA gave reasoned consideration to her CAT claim after exhaustively considering her application for withholding of removal on the same facts
• explaining that if the same judgment would be rendered after we correct a court's legal determination, our review amounts to nothing more than an advisory opinion
• explaining that addressing an issue over which the court lacks jurisdiction results in an impermissible advisory opinion
• explaining that this Court will not review findings by an immigration judge that the Board did not adopt
• explaining that we retain jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA gave reasoned consideration to a claim because it is a question of law
• explaining that even if an issue is renewable, we lack jurisdiction over that issue where it would have no effect on the judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).