Keh Tong Chen 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.

• noting that the court’s “insistence upon clear articulation of reasons in cases involving a . . . citizen-child is consistent [] with Congressional policy” and allows a reviewing court to “guard against arbitrary decisions which needlessly violate our nation’s family tradition.”
• “Filing of a cross-motion is not a prerequisite to the entry of judgment for the non-moving party.”
• finding the hardship determination arbitrary and capricious because it was “unclear whether the Regional Commissioner’s conclusion about anticipated hardship reflected a consideration of [the doctor’s] observations”
• noting that “had the Regional Commissioner specifically considered the effects on [the child] of separation from his [father] and found that these did not rise to the level of exceptional hardship contemplated by the Act, the court might have been obliged to affirm the [agency’s] decision.”
• explaining that while it “can be expected that some aliens will contract sham marriages in order to evade the immigration laws . . . it is less likely that aliens will have children, and far less likely that aliens will both marry and have children for fraudulent purposes.”
• finding the agency’s hardship determination arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).