United States v. Lopez-Velasquez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that immigration judges are not expected to be “clairvoyant” and that an alien or some other person must present evidence indicating that the alien is eligible for relief
• explaining that “apparent eligibility” is a “reasonable possibility that the alien may be eligible for relief” and that a failure to advise an alien of apparent eligibility is a due process violation
• en proceedings that present the same question. See, e.g., Emmert Indus. Corp. v. Artisan Assocs., Inc., 497 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2007
• “[T]he IJ is not required to advise [a noncitizen] of possible relief when there is no factual basis for relief in the record.”
• “Lopez-Velasquez does not actually claim that he was eligible for [the requested] relief under the applicable law at the time of his deportation hearing.”
• “Until the alien himself or some other person puts information before the judge that makes such eligibility apparent, this duty does not come into play.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).