Locks v. Lew

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning when it “agree[d] with the [IJ] that the evidence [was] insufficient to establish the likelihood of torture,” with government acquiescence
• holding that the factors enumerated in a precedential Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision provide a “sufficiently meaningful standard” by which to evaluate the denial of a request for administrative closure
• holding that the factors enumerated in a precedential Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision provide a “sufficiently meaningful standard” by which to evaluate the denial of a request for administrative closure
• reasoning that the IJ considered the country conditions, but “he was just not persuaded by it”
• holding the non-exhaustive list of factors in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), provides a standard for reviewing administrative closure decisions
• holding the non-exhaustive list of factors in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), provides a standard for reviewing administrative closure decisions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).