Khan v. Attorney General of 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 a choice to engage in political activities is a changed personal circumstance insufficient to justify reopening
• holding that a premature petition for review automatically ripens once the order of removal becomes final so long as the Government was not prejudiced by the premature filing
• noting that “[t]he lack of access to mental health treatment alone . . . does not create a well-founded fear of persecution”
• concluding, after a discussion of the BIA’s social-group analysis, that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen on that ground
• noting that Cape May Greene doctrine applies “where there is no showing of prejudice by the adverse party and we have not taken action on the merits of an appeal”
• noting that “[t]here are differing views among our sister Courts of Appeals with regard to whether premature petitions for review can ripen upon a final decision by the BIA” and finding that such petitions can ripen

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).