Infanzon v. Ashcroft

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).