§
In re S.L.H.

21 Cited authorities

  1. INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang

    519 U.S. 26 (1996)   Cited 225 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once an agency announces and follows a general policy, "an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as 'arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act"

  2. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft

    298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 179 times
    Holding that the record did not compel reversal of the BIA's finding that the petitioner's declaration, that he could not attend hearing due to a serious asthma attack, did not establish exceptional circumstances

  3. Mapouya v. Gonzales

    487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that in light of applicant's submission of two letters from independent sources in the Republic of Congo that showed a threat of harm to him, substantial evidence did not support finding that applicant lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution in Congo

  4. Lonyem v. U.S.Attorney General

    352 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that the affidavit of a nurse was insufficient to establish that petitioner was too sick to attend hearing

  5. Santos-Santos v. Barr

    917 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2019)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that Pereira did not divest courts of jurisdiction to consider removal proceedings after an NTA failed to include the relevant date and time because Pereira concerned the stop-time rule and addressed two statutory provisions that do not pertain to jurisdiction

  6. Herbert v. Ashcroft

    325 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2003)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that IJ acted capriciously in rejecting motion to reopen based on earlier denial of attorney's request for continuance when attorney had informed court that he was unexpectedly required to appear in federal court at the same time

  7. Camaj v. Holder

    625 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Explaining that Congress adopted the high exceptional-circumstances standard to solve the "serious problem" of individuals failing to appear, which effectively extended their stay in the country while "impos[ing] considerable costs on [DHS] and disrupt[ing] its efforts to promptly schedule and hear requests for discretionary relief from removal" (quoting Herbert, 325 F.3d at 71)

  8. Acquaah v. Holder

    589 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 24 times

    No. 08-3836. Submitted: December 3, 2009. Decided and Filed: December 18, 2009. ON BRIEF: Ilissa M. Gould, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Kwasi Acquaah, Oakdale, Louisiana, pro se. Before SILER, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Kwasi Acquaah, a native and citizen of Ghana, appeals a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying two separate motions to reopen his removal proceedings. An Immigration Judge

  9. Rajah v. Mukasey

    544 F.3d 449 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 25 times
    Reversing denial of continuance and remanding to the BIA for further guidance on what constitutes "sufficient time" in light of the "delays endemic in almost every stage of acquiring any visa"

  10. Murillo-Robles v. Lynch

    839 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2016)   Cited 15 times

    No. 15–2568 10-07-2016 Daniel Emerson Murillo–Robles, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Carlos E. Estrada, with whom Estrada Law Officewas on brief, for petitioner. Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, with whom Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, and Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Office of

  11. Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

    8 U.S.C. § 1252   Cited 43,467 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

  12. Section 1158 - Asylum

    8 U.S.C. § 1158   Cited 10,732 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"

  13. Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed

    8 U.S.C. § 1231   Cited 8,006 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver

  14. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,446 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”

  15. Section 1251 - Transferred

    8 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 2,159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

  16. Section 1003.23 - Reopening or reconsideration before the immigration court

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23   Cited 347 times
    Setting a 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen if the applicant does not seek rescission of an in absentia removal order or fall into another exception listed in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)

  17. Section 1003.26 - In absentia hearings

    8 C.F.R. § 1003.26   Cited 44 times
    Requiring DHS to establish that written notice of the time and place of proceedings, as well as the consequences of failure to appear, was provided to the alien