Vincent Jeffrey Seard v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that uncovering corruption in a private organization was “undeniably a political statement in the context of [Ukraine’s] evolving politics.”
• holding that error occurs “as a matter of law” if an IJ “ignore[s] arguments raised by a petitioner.”
• holding that the BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner
• stating that “Us and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner”
• reasoning that we have jurisdiction to review when the BIA failed to address arguments raised by the petitioner
• stating that “a victim who is targeted for exposing government corruption is persecuted ‘on account of’ political opinion” because “[r]etaliation for investigating or publicizing corruption by political figures is by its very nature a political act”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).