Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 4/19/2010

Vasquez v. Holder

Citations

  • 602 F.3d 1003
  • 602 F. Supp. 3d 1003
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7970
  • 2010 WL 1529418

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that Skidmore requires only “minimal deference” to a thinly reasoned decision
  • holding that Skidmore requires only “minimal deference” to a thinly reasoned decision
  • noting that “we do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a fraud waiver”
  • stating that “the fraud waiver provision does not limit its coverage to the ground of removal contained in subparagraph 237(a)(1)(A)” of the Act
  • noting “we do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a fraud waiver”
  • construing the section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver as covering those 843 Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 839 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3876 grounds of inadmissibility set out under section 237(a)(1) of the Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schroeder, Berzon, Strom

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Vasquez v. Holder

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.