Christopher v. Kraus

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although the petitioner “set[] out her disagreement with the BIA in her ‘Statement of the Case’ section” on certain issues, she made “no substantive argument” and thus forfeited the issues on appeal
• holding petitioner waived issue for which she made no substantive argument in her opening brief
• “We review BIA decisions to deny equitable tolling of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.”
• issue raised in statement of the case but not in substantive argument was forfeited
• “We may only exercise jurisdiction over BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening ‘for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.’” (quoting Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).