Second Circuit· 5/8/2009

Mendez v. Holder

Citations

566 F.3d 316
2009 WL 1259078

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that 21 when important facts relevant to relief have been “totally 5 1 overlooked” an error of law has occurred
stating that an agency “does not commit an ‘error of law’ every time an item of evidence is not explicitly considered or is described with imperfect accuracy”
IJ opinion recited that the only evidence regarding an asthma condition was a doctor’s letter, whereas the petitioner testified as to other evidence of the asthma’s severity
“[T]he agency does not commit an ‘error of law’ every time an item of evidence is not explicitly considered or is described with imperfect accuracy . . . .”
contrasting evidence that is “totally overlooked” or “seriously mischaracterized”
McLaughlin, Calabresi, and Sotomayor, Circuit Judges

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McLaughlin, Calabresi, Sotomayor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Mendez v. Holder

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.