Tenth Circuit· 10/28/2004

Infanzon v. Ashcroft

Citations

386 F.3d 1359
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22457
2004 WL 2407137

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that review of a motion to reopen is precluded if review of the underlying order of removal is precluded
ruling that this court lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA should have reopened proceedings sua sponte “because there are no standards by which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion” (citation omitted)
holding appellate court was without jurisdiction over removal order because alien did not file petition for review within thirty days
noting that “where judicial review of the underlying order is precluded [the] denial of a subsequent motion to reopen [is] also precluded.”
noting that “where judicial review of the underlying order is precluded,” then judicial review of a “denial of a subsequent motion to reopen [is] also precluded”
recognizing court lacked jurisdiction to review underlying removal order absent a timely petition for review, but court retained jurisdiction to consider the denial of a motion to reopen

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Henry, Murphy, Tymkovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.