 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Simoni v. Gonzales, No. 04-6069-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported denial of asylum based on adverse credibility finding because alien's testimony regarding who saved her from alleged kidnappers and timing of events during incident differed between alien's asylum application and her testimony. Because alien was not eligible for asylum, she was not eligible for withholding of removal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Emence, No. 05-1708-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in sentencing proceeding where, upon arriving at sentencing recommendation, district court addressed each of remaining factors listed in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), including defendant's dual contentions concerning alleged undue harshness of recommendation, and concluded that a sentence at low end of guideline range was appropriate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Seijas-Martinez, No. 05-1070,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's judgment was affirmed. Although defendant argued that as USSG was no longer mandatory, restriction of the safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(f), was discretionary, district court properly found safety valve inapplicable and properly considered itself bound by 10-year mandatory minimum sentence of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Wu Zheng Huang v. INS, Docket No. 02-4602-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of petitioner's asylum request was reversed where the IJ found that petitioner was statutorily eligible for asylum, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42), as the victim of a forced sterilization, but relied improperly on a narrow adverse credibility determination (that the petitioner "embellished" the story of his persecution) in denying asylum.
|
|||||
| Xue Bing Zhang v. Gonzales, No. 04-4791-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse discretion by holding that alien's U.S. born children did not constitute changed circumstance in China that would serve as exception under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) to time and numerical limitations for filing motion to reopen set forth at § 1003.2(c)(2). Thus, BIA did not abuse discretion in denying alien's third motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| Yue Xian Lin v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, No. 04-4470-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying alien's motion to reopen because 2004 Country Report was not material to alien's claims where alien was denied relief based on adverse credibility finding and not because she lacked evidence that Falun Gong practitioners were abused by Chinese government. Report did nothing to address alien's credibility.
|
|||||
| Zhi Yao Gao v. United States DOJ, No. 04-4666-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
