Pllumi 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.

• holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening where “the conditions described have persisted”
• holding that courts generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen proceedings because such decisions “are committed to the unfettered discretion of the BIA”
• holding that courts generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings on sua sponte motions because such decisions “are committed to the unfettered discretion of the BIA”
• holding that the BIA did not err in denying reopening where evidence did “not indicate meaningfully changed country conditions,” but instead “suggested] that the conditions described have persisted” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• concluding that the Petitioner had not established changed country conditions when “the conditions described have persisted,” even though the evidence submitted by the Petitioner was not available to him at the time of his initial removal hearing
• permitting remand where the BIA’s decision to deny sua sponte reopening is predicated on a “false legal premise”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).