In re L-S-

19 Cited authorities

Mohammed v. Gonzales
400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 1,515 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the BIA "must issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to reopen" and "address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner"
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft
371 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2004) Cited 366 times
Holding that substantial evidence supported BIA's denial of asylum where petitioner's return to his home country showed that he was not "a person unable or unwilling to return to his home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution
Pllumi v. Atty. Gen. of U.S.
642 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2011) Cited 166 times
Holding that the BIA did not err in denying reopening where evidence did "not indicate meaningfully changed country conditions," but instead "suggest[ed] that the conditions described have persisted"
Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales
418 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 94 times
Holding that where purpose of return trips was to gather income to flee permanently, trips did not rebut presumption of well-founded fear
Kone v. Holder
596 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 75 times
Holding that while "return trips alone are insufficient to establish lack of credibility," an IJ may consider them in connection with other findings
Hamida v. Gonzales
478 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 80 times
Holding that "the other serious harm provision provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution"
Mehmeti v. U.S. Attorney General
572 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2009) Cited 69 times
Holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision to deny asylum to an Albanian national when information in the country reports indicated changed country conditions that negated the presumption that he possessed an objective, well-founded fear of future persecution
Kazlauskas v. I.N.S.
46 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 93 times
Holding that harassment and ostracism was not sufficiently atrocious to support a humanitarian grant of asylum
Belishta v. Ashcroft
378 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 33 times
Holding that 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(B) "provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution whose fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground has been rebutted by evidence of changed country conditions or of safe harbors within his or her home country"
Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey
540 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 22 times
Finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the unavailability of Paxil and Klonopin in Russia was the result of the Russian government's attempt to injure the petitioner or, more generally, individuals with mental illness
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,705 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
Section 1158 - Asylum
8 U.S.C. § 1158 Cited 10,668 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"
Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 7,955 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
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,400 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”

In re L-S-

19 Cited authorities

Holding that the BIA "must issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to reopen" and "address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner"

Holding that substantial evidence supported BIA's denial of asylum where petitioner's return to his home country showed that he was not "a person unable or unwilling to return to his home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution

Holding that the BIA did not err in denying reopening where evidence did "not indicate meaningfully changed country conditions," but instead "suggest[ed] that the conditions described have persisted"

Holding that where purpose of return trips was to gather income to flee permanently, trips did not rebut presumption of well-founded fear

Holding that while "return trips alone are insufficient to establish lack of credibility," an IJ may consider them in connection with other findings

Holding that "the other serious harm provision provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution"

Holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision to deny asylum to an Albanian national when information in the country reports indicated changed country conditions that negated the presumption that he possessed an objective, well-founded fear of future persecution

Holding that harassment and ostracism was not sufficiently atrocious to support a humanitarian grant of asylum

Holding that 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(B) "provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution whose fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground has been rebutted by evidence of changed country conditions or of safe harbors within his or her home country"

Finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the unavailability of Paxil and Klonopin in Russia was the result of the Russian government's attempt to injure the petitioner or, more generally, individuals with mental illness

Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

Holding a "pattern or practice" of persecution requires it be "systemic, pervasive, or organized"

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

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”