Eneh v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a petitioner must show for purposes of CAT relief that someone—either a government official or private actor—specifically intended to torture him or her”
• explaining that “a petitioner must show for purposes of CAT relief that someone—either a government official or private actor—specifically intended to torture him or her”
• stating that when this court needs clarification in order to adequately review a BIA opinion, it is necessary to remand the case
• finding that petitioner was “not entitled to CAT relief solely on the basis that he would have inadequate access to medicine . . . if removed” to his home country
• remanding because the Board failed to “give 6 UC ENCARNACION V. BONDI reasoned consideration to [the petitioner’s] potentially dispositive testimony and documentary evidence”
• remanding where agency’s reasoning appeared to be at odds with aspects of case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).