Padmore 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 the BIA relied on “impermissible appellate factfinding” when it “reverse[d] the IJ . . . based on disputed material facts with respect to which the IJ reached no resolution”
• stating that, in conducting independent factfinding, BIA “exceeded its authority,” and thus raised reviewable error of law
• concluding remand to the IJ for factfinding may be required where the BIA relied on \disputed material facts with respect to which the IJ reached no resolution\ (emphasis added)
• finding that the BIA exceeded its authority when “the BIA decided to reverse the IJ ... based on disputed material facts with respect to which the IJ reached no resolution.”
• articulating 16 that the IJ may not base denial “upon the assumption that the facts contained in 17 [charging] documents are true”
• finding impermissible factfinding where the BIA relied on \disputed material facts with respect to which the IJ reached no resolution\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).