Madiagne Diop v. Loretta Lynch

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an applicant “must prove both” that the alleged defect rendered the proceeding fundamentally unfair and that the defect prejudiced the case
• explaining that IJs have “high degree of flexibility and discretion” in testing competency under M-A-M-
• \Inherent in this process is a high degree of flexibility and discretion for the fact-finder to tailor his approach to the case at hand.\
• “[A] single snapshot of mental health concerns taken ten months earlier can hardly represent [his] state of mind when he arrived in immigration court.”
• “The IJ’s factual 6 finding of competency is reviewed under the substantial 7 evidence standard . . . .”
• “While past mental history can certainly bear on competency, it is by no means dispositive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).