Sergio Leonel Mendoze v. U.S. Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an applicant’s testimony “if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration”
• holding that an alien who has not established past persecution may still be entitled to withholding of removal if he can demonstrate a future threat to his life or freedom on a protected ground
• holding that the BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights because the fact “[t]hat a one-sentence order was entered is no evidence that the BIA member did not review the facts of [the alien’s] case”
• stating that the respondent abandoned his CAT claim because he did not raise it in his brief on appeal
• noting that failure to include “citations to the . . . parts of the record on which the appellant relies . . . may result in waiver or abandonment of issues on appeal”
• noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) “divests our Court of jurisdiction to review a decision regarding whether an alien complied with the one-year time limit or established extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his untimely filing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).