In re Ranftle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “respondent’s actions upon learning of the in absentia order” is a relevant factor, and that “obtaining counsel and requesting reopening” is “significant”
• holding that the IJ is not “obliged to grant a motion [to reopen], even if every type of evidence [from the factors] is submitted”
• holding that there is a slight presumption of delivery where notice is sent by regular mail
• holding that the IJ is not “obliged to grant a motion [to reopen], even if every type of evidence [from the factors] is submitted”
• holding that where a notice to appear or notice of hearing is properly addressed and sent by regular mail according to normal office procedures, there is a presumption of delivery
• explaining that an “inflexible and rigid application of the presumption of delivery” is not appropriate for documents served by regular mail

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).