Rosales-Perez v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• stopping the analysis after upholding the BIA’s ruling that the petitioner “had not introduced new, material evidence”
• explaining how evidence isn't material if it does \nothing to fill a gap that existed in the original record evidence\
• rejecting contention BIA conflated the reasonable-likelihood and likely-change-the-result standards where demonstrating materiality required latter showing
• “[N]ew evidence [that] did not even purport to fill” what was “a key gap in [the] original application” was not material.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).