 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jana-Rock Constr., Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Econ. Dev., Docket No. 04-6328-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of Spanish-American's § 1983 Equal Protection challenge to New York state's definition of "Hispanic," which excluded people of Spanish or Portuguese descent who did not also come from Latin America, was affirmed because he could not show that the definition was adopted for a discriminatory purpose or lacked a rational basis.
|
|||||
| Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, Docket No. 04-6127-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of a motion for reconsideration of the denial of asylum and an order of deportation to China was denied because an alien dilated on the merits of his asylum claim without explaining how the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying his motion.
|
|||||
| Jin Xiang Lin v. Gonzales, No. 04-5752-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied alien's motion to reopen where the motion was filed outside the time and numerical limitations, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), because the motion, her third, was filed a full 15 months after BIA dismissed the underlying appeal, and alien did not establish one of the exceptions.
|
|||||
| Ke Wen Li v. Gonzales, No. 04-1873-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ming Shi Xue v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, Docket No. 04-0374-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of alien's application for asylum based on China's coercive family planning policies was vacated because the immigration judge denied the application based on an adverse credibility ruling that was based on three putative inconsistencies without raising them during the hearing and giving alien opportunity to address them.
|
|||||
| Ren Huo Huang v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, No. 04-5264-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien was denied asylum and withholding of removal, remand was necessary under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) because the grounds relied upon by the IJ for the adverse credibility finding were not based on substantial evidence; the alien was never asked questions about certain issues used to make the adverse credibility determination.
|
|||||
| Shui Ying Lin v. Gonzales, No. 04-5750-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of decision denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings was denied where, by implying that alien could not have established prima facie eligibility for asylum with an implausible claim, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), BIA provided an adequate, reasoned basis for denying motion, and did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
| Stackhouse v. McKnight, No. 05-0607-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where class action parties consented to have a magistrate judge adjudicate the proceedings under 28 U.S.C.S. § 636(c) and the magistrate judge denied the objectors' motions to intervene and vacate the reference, remand was necessary because there was no evidence that the objectors consented to the magistrate judge ruling on the motion to intervene.
|
|||||
| United States v. Parker, Docket No. 04-5175-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of the mid-case appointment of assigned counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3006A(c), was affirmed as the court, after conducting an appropriate inquiry into defendant's ability to pay counsel whom he had retained, was not clearly erroneous in finding that defendant was financially ineligible for mid-case appointment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
