Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the BIA may simply determine that the alien would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief
• recognizing that “[g]ranting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that a motion to reopen may be denied if \the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought\
• recognizing that “corroborating evidence may be required in certain circumstances” including where applicant “fails to put forth corroboration that should be readily available”
• holding that the BIA has broad discretion to deny motions to reopen “even if the alien has surmounted the requisite thresholds of prima facie case and new evidence/reasonable explanation.”
• holding that discretionary denials of motions to reopen are reviewed only for abuse of that discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).