In Re Steig Erickson v. the State of Texas

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 remand to the BIA is necessary where the IJ’s decision is founded on a discretionary and nondiscretionary basis and the BIA affirms without an No. 04-2959 7 opinion
• explaining that federal courts are courts of limited 16 jurisdiction and “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and [Congress]”
• stating that a grant of withholding “only prohibits removal of the petitioner to 16 the country of risk, but does not prohibit removal to a non-risk country”
• stating that a grant of withholding “only prohibits removal of the petitioner to 14 the country of risk, but does not prohibit removal to a non-risk country”
• stating that a grant of withholding “only prohibits removal of the petitioner to the country of risk, but does not prohibit removal to a non-risk country” (quoting Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 545 (6th Cir. 2003
• stating that “[t]here is no reason in the record to warrant a belief that [the 3 petitioner’s] alleged persecutors would still be interested in her” when the “alleged persecution occurred more than ten years ago”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).