Holding that § 1158(b)(B) "does not require the Attorney General to anticipate every adjudication by promulgating a regulation covering each particular crime"
Holding that the question "does not present an obscure ambiguity or a matter committed to agency discretion" because Chapter 73 "permit us to easily determine the types of conduct Congress intended the phrase to encompass"
Holding that "Congress's use of two different terms—‘particularly serious’ crime and ‘aggravated’ felony—is additionally indicative of substantively different meanings"
Holding that noncitizen's two citations to a statute, "without specifically explaining why [the statute] entitles him to relief, did not fairly present his legal theory to the BIA"
Rejecting the view that "regulation is the exclusive means by which the Attorney General can determine that a non-aggravated felony is a particularly serious crime" because, among other things, "requiring an agency to proceed by rulemaking alone could stultify the administrative process by rendering it inflexible and incapable of dealing with many of the specialized problems which arise"
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 7,991 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
Stating that for an alien to be eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT, they must "ha[ve] been found under § 1208.16(c) to be entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture"