In the Int. of: A.A., a Minor Appeal of: A.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that we could review only “constitutional claims or questions of law,” such as whether the Attorney General even has the authority to grant a waiver for marriage fraud under § 1227(a)(1)(H)
• concluding there was no prejudice from counsel failing to call certain witnesses because there was “no affidavit or other record evidence showing what new insights the witnesses could bring or how those insights could have changed the outcome of [the petitioner’s] case”
• explaining, in an immigration case, that a court would violate a non-English speaker’s due-process rights if “the judge knew that the interpreter could not accurately translate the alien’s testimony and never corrected the problem”
• not reaching a statutory question because its resolution “would make no difference” to deciding the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).