 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baftjari v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 04-3459-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's testimony that her children would have been denied birth certificates, education, and public service because of a law prohibiting Albanians from having two or more children was not specific or detailed and was insufficient to overcome the government's rebuttal of the presumption that the alien had a reasonable fear of future persecution.
|
|||||
| Chen Qizeng v. United States DOJ, No. 04-3458-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42) was denied because an IJ's decision to deny a Chinese alien relief was supported by substantial evidence where the IJ listed 17 specific, cogent reasons for finding the alien's testimony incredible.
|
|||||
| Jin Wen Lin v. Exec. Office of Immigration Review, No. 04-3489-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of the denial of a motion to reopen exclusion proceedings was denied because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion, particularly when an alien failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, and the alien's new evidence was too speculative to have been considered material to warrant reopening.
|
|||||
| Rong Mei Liu v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. 03-4589,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In finding that an alien was not credible as to her fear of forced sterilization if returned to China, an IJ gave due consideration to her explanation as to why she had omitted a forced abortion from her asylum application and did not err in failing to reference a psychiatric report that was based solely on information from the alien.
|
|||||
| You Shu He v. United States AG, No. 04-3397-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of the denial of asylum was denied because there were numerous inconsistencies between an alien's testimony and his written statement in support of his 1993 asylum application, his 1998 asylum hearing testimony, and an affidavit submitted after the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded an initial denial of asylum eligibility.
|
|||||
| Hayes v. New York City Police Dep't, No. 06-0595-pr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former arrestee's excessive force claim against a police officer was improperly dismissed because it was not objectively reasonable under U.S. Const. amend. IV for the officer to strike the arrestee in the head with a gun as he walked around the officer with his hands in the air, or to hit the seated and handcuffed arrestee with a nightstick.
|
|||||
| Burke v. Ulico Cas. Co., No. 04-5695-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In pension fund participants' breach of fiduciary duty action against fund trustees, a district court properly found that, under the trustees' policy with its insurer, the policy's insured vs. insured exclusion clause did not exclude coverage of the trustees for the claims against them, and that the insurer was required to defend the trustees.
|
|||||
| Handberry v. Thompson, Docket Nos. 03-0047, 03-0065,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In inmates' class suit for defendants' failure to provide required educational services, city defendants correctly argued that PLRA limited district court's power to order prospective relief for violations solely of state law and injunction was vacated as necessary. Inmates could not support further injunctive relief on basis of Due Process Clause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
