James v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

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

• holding BIA lacked statutory authority to order removal, because \only an IJ may enter an order of removal in the first instance\ (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1)-(3) )
• noting that \[w]e recognize that `[w]hether an offense \involves\ fraud is a broader question than whether it constitutes fraud'\ and concluding that \[t]he plain language of § 1344 . . . provides that a violation of either subsection necessarily entails fraud or deceit\
• adopting the reasoning in Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft , 335 F.3d 874 , 884-85 (9th Cir. 2003)
• adopting the reasoning in Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft , 335 F.3d 874 , 884-85 (9th Cir. 2003)
• noting that “[w]e recognize that ‘[w]hether an offense “involves” fraud is a broader question than whether it constitutes fraud’” and concluding that “[t]he plain language of § 1344 . . . provides that a violation of either subsection necessarily entails fraud or deceit”
• rejecting specific challenges to use of the restitution order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).