Kang v. Attorney General of US

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, to warrant CAT relief, the evidence must compel the conclusion that the petitioner has met his burden.
• explaining that reversal is warranted in this context only if the evidence “compels” a different result
• explaining that we decline to remand only when “application of the correct legal principles to the record could lead . . . to [a single] conclusion” (emphasis omitted)
• stating that courts “uphold the BIA’s reversal of the IJ’s grant of CAT relief if there is substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ clearly erred in finding a likelihood of torture”
• reviewing for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that an IJ clearly erred when it found the petitioner showed a likelihood of torture
• noting that “[t]he BIA may not ignore evidence in the record that favors the petitioner,” and that whether the legal definition of torture has been satisfied is a question of law that the BIA must review de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).