 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Yu Lu v. Gonzales, No. 04-3957-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen petitioner's deportation proceedings under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a, because the petitioner's receipt of a "Birth Without Marriage" fee was insufficient to establish that the petitioner's wife had been persecuted in China and was a proper ground for a discretionary denial of his motion.
|
|||||
| Yun Jing Chen v. Gonzales, No. 04-2690-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of asylum was denied because an alien's implausible, inconsistent, and uncorroborated testimony constituted substantial evidence that supported an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination.
|
|||||
| Zu Jin Zheng v. Gonzales, No. 03-40807-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's adverse credibility finding and resultant denial of asylum was based on substantial evidence because the alien omitted in his written statements the date he went into hiding, which created a critical narrative gap, he failed to provide a date for his wife's abortion and other missing details, and he seemed to be testifying from a script.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
