Cheng Chen v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that alien who remains in U.S. after being ordered deported may not use “interval of unauthorized presence in the United States to manufacture a case for asylum”
• noting Haddad “did not mention section 1229a(c)(7)(C) or the Board’s understanding of its relation to section 1158(a)(2)(D)” and declining to follow its approach
• holding, where alien under final removal order sought leave to file successive asylum application on basis of two American-born children, that procedural requirements for motions to reopen “govern!], and so the petition for review must be denied”
• stating “[t]here is no conflict” between the separate regimes for motions to reopen and successive asylum applications as currently written
• affirming denial of motion to reopen where alien's one-child-policy asylum claim was based on post-removal order children born in the United States
• noting Haddad “did not mention section 1229a(c)(7)(C) or the Board’s understanding of its relation to section 1158(a)(2)(D)” and declining to follow its approach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).