Calle 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 “merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying ... errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider”
• similarly concluding remand is unnecessary when no further factfinding is needed, and agency expertise would be unhelpful
• “¡Merely reiterating arguments previously presented to .the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” (alteration omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).