Tarlock Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

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 Board’s erroneous determination that it lacked the authority to grant petitioner’s motion was an abuse of discretion
• holding that the BIA errs in denying sua sponte reopening where the BIA impermissibly holds that it lacks authority to do so
• holding that the BIA erred, and thus abused its discretion, when it denied a motion to reopen for lack of authority
• holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to reopen an arriving alien’s case so he could apply for 24 NAKKA V. USCIS § 1245.2(a)(1)(i), (ii); see also Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2008
• “Where, as here, the BIA concludes that it lacks the authority to reopen, rather than denying a motion to reopen as an exercise of discretion, we hold that Ekimian does not preclude our jurisdiction.”
• “Because the Board had authority to reopen under § 1003.2(a), the Board’s denial of [the petitioner’s] motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and is alone sufficient reason to grant [the petitioner’s] petition for review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).