|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case
for free through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
11th Circuit Court of Appeals - February 9, 2007
|
| |
Castellanos v. United States AG, No. 06-13499 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Substantial evidence supported immigration judge's denial of alien's application for asylum and withholding of removal; alien failed to show that he was persecuted where he received threatening phone calls from pro-Chavez group, alien's business was vandalized, and he was beaten up, and alien could relocate within Venezuela to avoid the group.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Guy v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., No. 06-14250 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The district court's order denying class certification was affirmed because it correctly found that: (1) the insured could not establish common questions of law and fact, (2) common issues did not predominate, and (3) a class action was not the superior method to resolve claims seeking mold remediation benefits under homeowners insurance policies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Nates v. United States AG, No. 06-12742 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying alien's motion to reopen because motion was not timely filed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), none of the proffered evidence established changed circumstances in Colombia after alien's asylum hearing, and alien failed to satisfy exception to timely filing requirement.
|
|
| |
Njenga v. United States AG, No. 06-11736 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Failure to meet stringent asylum standard resulted in proper denial of withholding of removal; IJ properly found that Kenyan woman's enterprise group was not "social group," 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158, 1101(a)(42)(A), and that persecutors were not government-supported. 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1129c(f) divested court of jurisdiction on remaining issues.
|
|
| |
Rodas-Sebastian v. United States AG, No. 06-13045 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The part of an alien's petition addressing her asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claims was dismissed because the petition was untimely, and that part of the petition addressing denial of the alien's motion to reopen was denied since the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying an untimely motion to reopen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Gonzalez, No. 06-14045 Non-Argument Calendar, No. 06-14046 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's 62-month sentence for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 and one-month sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 3146(a)(1) were affirmed because his sentences were enhanced for obstruction of justice; therefore he was not entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction, and defendant did not show that his sentences were unreasonable.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|