Jae Sun Jung v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that IJ did not abuse its discretion by pretermitting application when applicant failed to complete biometrics obligations after receiving adequate notice
• holding that the denial of the motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion where the non-detained alien had been given two months and knew the consequences of not obtaining counsel
• holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a request for more time to obtain an attorney after the IJ had already granted a two-month continuance for that purpose
• finding no abuse of discretion where “the IJ twice warned [the petitioner] that if she did not provide her biometrics before the next hearing her application would be deemed abandoned”
• rejecting the argument that the IJ failed to develop the record by “failing to question the government about whether it sent the biometrics submission receipt notices,” because “the burden is on the alien to follow up if the notice is not received”
• “As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).