 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A.E. v. Westport Bd. of Educ., No. 06-5920-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed summary judgment to board of education in action brought by student and her parents under IDEA alleging that student did not receive a free and appropriate education. There was no requirement in IDEA that parties reach consensus on all aspects of IEP before it was valid and proper recourse was due process hearing.
|
|||||
| Hajredin Madzuric v. Keisler, 06-4747-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B), substantial evidence supported IJ's conclusion that citizen of Serbia and Montenegro did not show that he would face disproportionately excessive penalties on account of protected ground due to fact that he avoided conscription into Serbian army, as citizen had not suffered past harm on account of protected ground.
|
|||||
| Jahjaga v. Keisler, 07-0174-ag (L); 07-0175-ag (con) NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under substantial evidence standard of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B), court rejected a Serbian alien's claim that he never received notice of an IJ's decision. Record supported the BIA's finding that decision was sent to correct attorney at proper address; thus, BIA did not err in refusing to find that extraordinary circumstances excused untimeliness.
|
|||||
| Jusak Agus Widjaja v. Keisler, 06-3980-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Review of BIAs denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings was denied as petitioner had filed prior motion to reopen and was not entitled to file second motion unless he showed "changed country conditions per 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); due process claim was also rejected because petitioner already had ample opportunity to present claim.
|
|||||
| Jusufaj v. Keisler, 07-0634-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B), substantial evidence supported BIA's determination that country conditions in Albania had fundamentally changed such that Albanian asylum applicant no longer had well-founded fear of persecution where State Department evidence did not identify incidents of politically motivated police abuse in Albania after 2001.
|
|||||
| Kensington Int'l, Ltd. v. Itoua, Docket Nos. 06-1763-cv (L), 06-2216-cv (CON),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment denying the state run oil company of the Republic of the Congo's motion to dismiss a judgment creditor's racketeering claims was reversed because the commercial activities exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) did not apply to the company's alleged conduct, and therefore the company was immune from suit under the FSIA.
|
|||||
| Qing Bo Qu v. Keisler, 07-0148-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that asylum applicant did not show a nexus between her mistreatment by Chinese authorities and protected ground specified in 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42) was not supported by substantial evidence, as required by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B). IJ and BIA did not consider that authorities imputed applicant's husband's political opinion to applicant.
|
|||||
| Twin Fen Yang v. Keisler, 07-0820-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B), substantial evidence supported denial of asylum to Chinese applicant. While BIA did not specifically address applicant's economic harm claim, there was no indication that it did not consider it in aggregate in finding that it did not amount to persecution, as economic harm had to be severe to amount to persecution.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
