In re L-O-G

25 Cited authorities

INS v. Doherty
502 U.S. 314 (1992) Cited 1,117 times
Holding that a regulation with the same formulation established a necessary but not sufficient condition
INS v. Abudu
485 U.S. 94 (1988) Cited 1,190 times
Holding that the BIA may deny a motion to reopen if "the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought"
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang
450 U.S. 139 (1981) Cited 301 times
Holding that where allegations are "unsupported by affidavit" they cannot support a motion to reopen because this would constitute a circumvention of the affidavit requirement in the regulations
INS v. Rios-Pineda
471 U.S. 444 (1985) Cited 189 times
Holding that the BIA may discount evidence of seven years' presence in its assessment of eligibility for suspension when presence was maintained through meritless appeals
Pring v. Penthouse International, Ltd.
462 U.S. 1132 (1983) Cited 102 times
Overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff where all witnesses testified that magazine story "could not possibly be about [the plaintiff] as she would not do [the acts alleged in the story]"
Gebremichael v. I.N.S.
10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1993) Cited 78 times
Holding petitioner's due process rights were violated when he was not given opportunity to respond to a fact newly noticed by the BIA prior to an adverse decision against him
M.A. v. U.S. I.N.S.
899 F.2d 304 (4th Cir. 1990) Cited 87 times
Finding that alien's "own allegations make clear that his fear is grounded in nothing more than the generally violent conditions extant in El Salvador" and rejecting the notion that assertions of "general violence alone can satisfy the requirement of an individualized threat of persecution"
Watkins v. I.N.S.
63 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 35 times
Holding that BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen by failing to consider "all relevant factors," including "fear of persecution"
Tukhowinich v. I.N.S.
64 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 29 times
In Tukhowinich v. INS, 64 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1995), the BIA wrongly stated that the IJ had considered certain evidence relevant to the petitioner's appeal.
Salameda v. I.N.S.
70 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 1995) Cited 28 times
Holding that non-citizen minor child would be "constructively deported" upon the deportation of his parents and that, as a result, the child was "entitled to ask [the immigration court] for relief on his own account"
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,956 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1254 - Repealed
8 U.S.C. § 1254 Cited 1,132 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing suspension-of-deportation eligibility

In re L-O-G

25 Cited authorities

Holding that a regulation with the same formulation established a necessary but not sufficient condition

Holding that the BIA may deny a motion to reopen if "the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought"

Holding that where allegations are "unsupported by affidavit" they cannot support a motion to reopen because this would constitute a circumvention of the affidavit requirement in the regulations

Holding that the BIA may discount evidence of seven years' presence in its assessment of eligibility for suspension when presence was maintained through meritless appeals

Overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff where all witnesses testified that magazine story "could not possibly be about [the plaintiff] as she would not do [the acts alleged in the story]"

Holding petitioner's due process rights were violated when he was not given opportunity to respond to a fact newly noticed by the BIA prior to an adverse decision against him

Finding that alien's "own allegations make clear that his fear is grounded in nothing more than the generally violent conditions extant in El Salvador" and rejecting the notion that assertions of "general violence alone can satisfy the requirement of an individualized threat of persecution"

Holding that BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen by failing to consider "all relevant factors," including "fear of persecution"

In Tukhowinich v. INS, 64 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1995), the BIA wrongly stated that the IJ had considered certain evidence relevant to the petitioner's appeal.

Holding that non-citizen minor child would be "constructively deported" upon the deportation of his parents and that, as a result, the child was "entitled to ask [the immigration court] for relief on his own account"

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Describing suspension-of-deportation eligibility