Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an alien’s departure, which constituted a “withdrawal” of a motion, does not deprive the BIA of jurisdiction to reconsider that decision — reconsideration “does not depend on an alien’s presence in the country”
• explaining that '[i]f the Supreme Court sees no incompatibility between a statutory right to apply for something and an implied-withdrawal approach, it is hard to fault the Board for adopting a similar view'
• rejecting Attorney General’s request for a general remand for Board to reconsider merits, when Board’s position was that it No. 16‐4193 9 did not have jurisdiction to consider merits
• rejecting Attorney General’s request for a general remand for Board to reconsider merits, when Board’s position was that it No. 16‐4193 9 did not have jurisdiction to consider merits
• observing in dicta that § 1003.4 is “strange phraseology as applied to an alien whose departure was beyond his control” because “[i]t is unnatural to speak of one litigant withdrawing another’s motion”
• observing in dicta that § 1003.4 is “strange phraseology as applied to an alien whose departure was beyond his control” because “[i]t is 1 The government argues that Lopez was denied only an administrative appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).