Laurence G. Limsico v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying unopposed motion to reopen
• noting “the rule that requires the [BIA] to accept as true facts alleged in petitioner’s affidavits in support of reopening”
• finding petitioner’s sworn testimony admitting to marriage fraud “would obviously factor into any discretionary determination concerning possible relief from deportation”
• finding vague and speculative testimony about violence and general conditions of unrest insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum
• “Absent an express statutory or regulatory requirement, we conclude that Congress did not intend to require the INS to file an opposition brief when the alien is the moving party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).