Jose Manuel Celis-Castellano 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 petitioner’s declaration that he had an asthma attack does not establish that the illness was “serious” within the meaning of the statute
• holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening of an in absentia order because the petitioner’s medical evidence was insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances
• recognizing that, in a motion to reopen, the agency “must accept the facts in an alien’s affidavit as true unless inherently unbelievable” (citing Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1985))
• noting that in a motion to reopen “[t]he Board must accept the facts in an alien’s affidavit as true unless inherently unbelievable”
• concluding BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner’s evidence, consisting of a declaration and a medical form, failed to establish that his asthma attack amounted to “exceptional circumstances”
• explaining that the agency’s factual finding “must stand unless the record compels reversal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).