Khan v. Filip

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen because the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence that he “was likely to suffer politically motivated persecution if returned to Pakistan”
• explaining that “factual determina- tions (such as whether the asylum application was filed within the one-year deadline) and discretionary decisions (such as whether the alien has demonstrated ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the delay
• explaining that “factual determina- tions (such as whether the asylum application was filed within the one-year deadline) and discretionary decisions (such as whether the alien has demonstrated ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the delay
• explaining that “factual determina- tions (such as whether the asylum application was filed within the one-year deadline) and discretionary decisions (such as whether the alien has demonstrated ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the delay
• explaining that “factual determina- tions (such as whether the asylum application was filed within the one-year deadline) and discretionary decisions (such as whether the alien has demonstrated ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the delay
• “[A] pe- titioner’s failure to show a clear probability of future persecu- tion also means he cannot show a likelihood that he will be tortured.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).