Jimmy Johnson v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Board’s remand order, which stated a particular purpose, did not limit the immigration judge’s authority to consider other matters
• explaining that it is an abuse of discretion for an agency to disregard its own policies
• recognizing rule that Board “must follow, distinguish, or overrule [its] own precedent”
• “Under Patel, the Immigration Judge’s jurisdiction is narrowed only when the remand order is qualified or limited, which ... must be more than a statement of purpose alone.”
• “Although an agency can change or adapt its policies, it acts arbitrarily if it departs from its established precedents without ‘announcing a principled reason’ for the departure.” (quoting Fertilizer Inst. v. Browner, 163 F.3d 774, 778 (3d Cir. 1998))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).