Jose Didiel Munoz v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, to interpret the statute consistently with international law in the manner that the petitioner proposed, would be “squarely at odds with the plain language of the statute”
• holding that, to interpret the statute consistently with international law in the manner that the petitioner proposed, would be \squarely at odds with the plain language of the statute\
• concluding that because the record contained no evidence that could establish a well-founded fear of persecution, the petitioner could not show that the counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him
• holding that the April 1,1990, deadline is not subject to equitable tolling
• explaining that counsel’s withdrawal of an application did not constitute a due process violation where applicant failed to demonstrate eligibility for form of relief
• explaining that counsel’s withdrawal of an application was not deficient or prejudicial where applicant failed to demonstrate eligibility for form of relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).