 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ali v. Gonzales, No. 05-2490,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A native of Pakistan and citizen of Bangladesh was denied review of the denial of his claim for asylum because a single incident was insufficient to establish persecution, there was no link between the incident and his political beliefs, and the evidence did not compel a finding of a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political beliefs.
|
|||||
| Berrio-Barrera v. Gonzales, No. 06-1294,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported an IJ's finding that an alien's past persecution, i.e. his kidnapping, was not motivated by one of the statutorily protected grounds for asylum, but instead was to extort money; since the alien's claim that he feared persecution based on social membership was raised for the first time on appeal, it was not exhausted.
|
|||||
| Charter Communs. Entm't I v. Burdulis, Nos. 05-1653, 05-1726,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In affirming the district court, the appeals court agreed that 47 U.S.C.S. § 605 did not apply to theft of cable services as evidenced by the statutory text and regulatory regime, that 47 U.S.C.S. § 553 allowed only one statutory damages award even if there were multiple violations, and the award was to be based on an estimate of actual damages.
|
|||||
| Epstein v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 06-1023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The relevant statutes of limitations, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §§ 2A, 5A, and ch. 106, § 2-725, barred a designer's claims against a manufacturer because the claims accrued when he sent a letter regarding possible misuse of intellectual property and the fraudulent concealment doctrine under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 260, § 12 did not toll the periods.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortiz-Cintron, No. 04-2402, No. 04-2403, No. 04-2404,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The forfeiture of two properties was supported by the findings that the properties were used to facilitate drug dealing, and the loss of $ 33,000 in equity was not even arguably an excessive fine. Defendant waived any right to a jury trial on the forfeiture issue, and besides, the Sixth Amendment did not apply.
|
|||||
| Abdullah v. Gonzales, No. 05-2023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien from Pakistan alleged that he would be stoned to death due to rape charges and his political party membership, his motion to reopen his asylum application was properly denied under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 because it was reasonable to find that he could find a safe haven in another part of the country.
|
|||||
| Bollanos v. Gonzales, No. 05-2791,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An ethnic Greek alien's asylum application under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 1158(b)(1)(A) based on persecution in Albania and Greece was properly denied because substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that circumstances in Albania had changed fundamentally such that he could have no well-founded fear of persecution there.
|
|||||
| Heydemans v. Gonzales, No. 05-2529,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT was denied, in part because the court lacked jurisdiction to review determination that alien was ineligible for asylum. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(A), the court could not consider new materials offered by the alien to support his petition.
|
|||||
| Jean v. Gonzales, No. 05-2724,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien from Haiti alleged that he was persecuted due to his opposition to Aristide, his asylum and withholding of removal application was properly denied because, under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A), and 1252(b)(4)(B), substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding that the alien and his wife lacked credibility.
|
|||||
| Vaka v. Gonzales, No. 05-2802,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied because politically motivated abuse did not rise to the level of past persecution pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A), and lead petitioner failed to show he possessed a well-founded fear of future persecution should he return to Albania. Therefore, he also failed to meet the standard for withholding of removal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
