Edelman v. Sobol

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that sua sponte authority is “an extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional circumstances”
• stating that the Board uses its authority to reopen or reconsider cases sparingly, in “truly exceptional” situations
• holding that an alien’s right to “a full and fair hearing on his asylum claim” was not compromised where he had “availed himself of his statutory and regulatory rights, which resulted in a full hearing” in removal proceedings
• explaining that the Board’s authority to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings is “an extraordinary remedy reserved for truly exceptional situations”
• explaining that the BIA “must be persuaded that the [petitioner]’s situation is truly exceptional” for it “to exercise [its] sua sponte authority to reopen”
• explaining that the BIA will reopen “sua sponte” if it is “persuaded that a change in law is sufficiently compelling that the extraordinary intervention of [its] sua sponte authority is warranted” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).