Mohammed Jibril v. Alejandro Mayorkas

Oral argument

• Argued

  20 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court of appeals possesses jurisdiction to review cancellation of removal eligibility decisions by the BIA for errors of statutory interpretation
• concluding that the petitioner raised a question of law where she 3 under section 1229b(b)(1), Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002
• interpreting a different section of the INA, § 1229(b)(1)(D), and concluding that a rule categorically treating alternative means of immigrating as undermining claims of hardship was contrary to that statute's requirement of \individualized enquiry in each case\
• interpreting a different section of the INA, § 1229(b)(1)(D), and concluding that a rule categorically treating alternative means of immigrating as undermining claims of hardship was contrary to that statute’s requirement of “individualized enquiry in each case”
• interpreting a different section of the INA, § 1229(b)(1)(D), and concluding that a rule categorically treating alternative means of immigrating as undermining claims of hardship was contrary to that statute’s requirement of “individualized enquiry in each case”
• court lacks jurisdiction to 2 14-72519 review merits of hardship determination and only retains jurisdiction over constitutional claims that have “some possible validity” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).