John Waldron v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the jurisdictional bar did not preclude a petition for review based on \the legal question of whether the BIA applied the correct standard of review when reviewing the IJ's factual findings\
• holding that the jurisdictional bar did not preclude a petition for review based on “the legal question of whether the BIA applied the correct standard of review when reviewing the IJ’s factual findings”
• explaining that the BIA should remand a case to the IJ for further factfinding if an IJ does not specifically address a question of fact
• stating that the Board’s role is “to accept the facts as found by the [Immigration Judge] and determine de novo whether those facts rose to the level of ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ as a matter of law”
• explaining “there is a difference between weighing the factual findings of the IJ and reweighing the underlying evidence and testimony behind those factual findings to reach new factual conclusions”
• reversing the BIA -7- after it engaged in inappropriate factual findings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).