Yuanliang Liu v. U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that discrepancy between an applicant’s 3 original asylum application and the amended application and 4 testimony provided substantial evidence in support of adverse 5 credibility determination
• stating that frivolousness finding “permanently forecloses the petitioner from all benefits under the immigration laws of this country”
• concluding, “as a matter of discretion, that it is prudent and useful for us to remand the issue” at hand, regardless of whether such a remand would be “required by elementary principles of administrative law” (emphasis omitted)
• concluding, “as a matter of discretion, that it is prudent and useful for us to remand the issue” at hand, regardless of whether such a remand would be “required by elementary principles of administrative law” (emphasis omitted)
• remanding to the Board with instructions to identify the standards used to find an application frivolous
• noting that an applicant may still benefit from non-INA relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).