Mohammed Nasir Khan v. Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that due process is violated if an alien is not provided a reasonable opportunity to present his case and prejudice results from the absence of that opportunity
• “The Government correctly argues that Khan ‘has no constitutional right to have his proceedings held in abeyance while he attempts, belatedly, to restore his status.’”
• “[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies is not always required when the petitioner advances a due process claim.” (quoting Sewak, 900 F.2d at 670)
• to make successful due- process claim, alien “must show that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case” (quoting Uspango v. Ashcroft, 289 F.3d 226, 231 (3d Cir. 2002)
• “[B]ecause this claim, stripped of its ‘due process’ label, is a claim of procedural error that could have been addressed by the BIA on appeal, the requirement that Khan exhaust remedies applies.”
• explaining three-step process for employment-based permanent residency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).