Salgado-Toribio 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 court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review BIA’s discretionary decision that alien’s situation did not warrant sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings
• suggesting that appellate courts can review “questions of law” raised by the Board’s refusal to reopen sua sponte
• noting that when the Board makes a legal determination, “[w]e do have jurisdiction to review” if there are “questions of law” presented (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D))
• applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to petition for review of BIA decision
• “[O]ur precedent clearly forecloses any review” of the Board’s 5 discretionary decision “not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte.”
• \We do have jurisdiction to review 'constitutional claims or questions of law' raised in a petition for review.\ (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).