Fen Yong Chen v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that BIA’s decision to “independently assess [petitioner’s] credibility without giving deference to the findings of the IJ . . . is de novo review”
• holding that the BIA’s de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings “constitutes legal error by the BIA requiring remand”
• noting that the BIA was “permitted to engage in de novo review of an IJ’s factual findings” in appeals filed before September 25, 2002
• noting that 18 despite “cit[ing] the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, [the BIA] 2 1 failed to apply this deferential standard of review”
• remanding when “the BIA used the phrase ‘clearly erroneous’ in its opinion” but “in fact” assessed credibility de novo
• “The BIA’s substitution of its judgment for the IJ’s is classic de novo review . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).