Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 12/6/2010

Rosario v. Holder

Citations

  • 627 F.3d 58
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24882
  • 2010 WL 4923557

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that agency’s “factfinding, factor- balancing, and exercise of discretion normally do not involve legal or constitutional questions”
  • noting that the regulation invites “the exercise of considerable discretion in assessing the totality of the circumstances”
  • finding that district court did not have jurisdiction over petition to review the BIA's cancellation of petitioners' application to cancel removal
  • stating that mixed questions of law and fact in BIA decisions are renewable where BIA’s underlying factual determination is flawed by error of law
  • setting the substantive standard for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses
  • “[T]he BIA’s factfinding, factor-balancing, and exercise of discretion normally do not involve legal or constitutional questions, so we lack jurisdiction to review them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jacobs, Raggi, Rakoff

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Rosario v. Holder

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.