Kaplun v. 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.

• holding that, in likelihood of torture inquiries, what is likely to happen is the factual aspect, and whether that amounts to torture is the legal aspect
• holding that question of likelihood of torture is a mixed one, comprised of factual component (“what is likely to happen to the petitioner if removed”) and legal one (“does what is likely to happen amount to the legal definition of torture”
• noting that BIA must review IJ findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard
• affirming Board’s decision that a conviction for securities fraud with a loss of nearly $900,000 constituted a particularly serious crime
• reviewing claim raised by petitioner convicted of an aggravated felony that the BIA’s decision ran “contrary to BIA precedent”
• remanding a BIA decision denying CAT relief because, “even though the BIA purported ‘not [to] find facts [itself,]’ . . . it appears that the BIA reexamined the record and conducted de novo fact-finding” (alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).