Figueroa v. Mukasey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an issue was preserved for the BIA’s review where an IJ’s decision addressed it
• holding that the exhaustion doctrine is not applied 'in a formalistic manner'
• stating that the hardship inquiry is “a future-oriented analysis, not an analysis of [relatives’] present conditions”
• explaining that the exhaustion doctrine is not applied “in a formalistic manner” and requires only that the petitioner put the BIA on notice as to the specific issues so that it has an opportunity to pass on those issues
• reversing and remanding where the BIA failed to correct an IJ’s legal error
• agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).