Carpio v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that allowing eligibility to hinge on the agency’s speed could “violate[] basic principles of common sense and fairness”
• stating that the CSPA “applies to petitioners seeking classification (1) as an immediate relative of a United States citizen; (2) as the child of a lawful permanent resident; (3) as the child of an applicant for employment-based permanent residence; (4
• describing the post-IMFA requirement that K-visa holders file an application for adjustment of status in order to obtain lawful permanent residence
• applying the framework set forth in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), to unpublished, single-member decision by the BIA
• “We examine ‘the thoroughness evident in the BIA’s consideration, the validity of its reasoning, and its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements.’ ” (alterations omitted
• “If the interpretation is not precedential within the agency, then the interpretation does not qualify for Chevron deference.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).