Seto v. American Elevator, Inc.

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 fifth factor cut against petitioner where he “ha[d] not demonstrated reliance on an established rule” and the “government assert[ed] its 24 strong interest in maintaining the uniformity of immigration law” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that “uncorroborated arrest reports are admissible in the cancellation-of-removal discretionary analysis” and citing approvingly to Matter of Thomas
• explaining that because BIA had not addressed issue under review in published decision, petitioner could “point to no rule upon which he could reasonably have relied when entering his . . . guilty plea”
• “Ordinarily, legislation operates prospectively while judicial holdings interpret existing law and thus operate retroactively.”
• “[J]udicial holdings interpret existing law and thus operate retroactively.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).