 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Santa Cruz-Bucheli v. Gonzales, No. 05-2157,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings was denied because, pursuant to § 440(d) of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, an alien was ineligible for a discretionary waiver due to his conviction for a controlled substance offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. De Los Santos-Martinez, No. 05-2177,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a), it was not unreasonable to impose a 16-month sentence based largely on defendant's prior illegal reentry conviction, even though that conviction and its proximity in time to the recent offense were also reflected in his criminal history category.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leland, No. 05-2670,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed without prejudice because such claim could not make its debut on direct review where the record was not sufficiently developed to allow reasoned consideration. Thus, the claim was premature but could be brought in a postconviction petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255.
|
|||||
| Berhe v. Gonzales, No. 05-1870, No. 05-2239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA correctly used the hypothetical federal felony methodology in deciding if convictions qualified as aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43); however, one alien's conviction was a felony under federal law, while the other's was not, and thus, the former was ineligible for relief while the latter was eligible and his case was remanded.
|
|||||
| Enwonwu v. United States, No. 06-1825,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kandamar v. Gonzales, No. 05-2523,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien was found removable after reporting to a registration interview under the National Security Entry - Exit Registration System (NSEERS), his petition for review was denied because, inter alia, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure and the NSEERS registration did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Weiping Zheng v. Gonzales, No. 05-2562,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was not entitled to asylum due to religious persecution because, although IJ erroneously depicted the alien's testimony concerning the date of his job discharge, the IJ enumerated ten other independent grounds for his adverse credibility determination regarding the alien, and his finding was not reversible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
