 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dinsey v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 06-4409-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review of a BIA order denying reconsideration of the denial of his spouse's visa petition was denied as visa petitions were not final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252 and thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial. Reconsideration of the IJ's refusal to grant a stay was also denied.
|
|||||
| Fa Li Liu v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 06-5147-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Chinese citizen was not entitled to have his removal proceeding reopened based on ineffective assistance of counsel because the citizen failed to explain why he was unable to discover the existence of an exclusion order, what steps he took to pursue his claim, or explain his communications, if any, with his attorney.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Keisler, No. 05-6088-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien from Belize was properly denied cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(a)(3) because his state law conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance under N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16(1) qualified as a conviction of an aggravated felony under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
|
|||||
| Kleiman v. Barnhart, No. 05-4377-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nshanova v. Keisler, 07-0101-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) supported the denial of an alien's asylum claim; the BIA reasonably found that being ostracized by her family and friends in Uzbekistan after she converted to Catholicism did not rise to the level of past persecution, and that she was never arrested or harmed on account of her religion.
|
|||||
| Ping Zhen Chen v. Keisler, 07-0661-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal where case law dictated that applicants could become candidates for asylum relief only based on persecution that they themselves suffered or would suffer, his application was based solely on his wife's forced sterilization, and thus, he was ineligible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42).
|
|||||
| Shah v. Keisler, 07-0384-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) supported the denial of asylum and related relief for an Indian alien because his alleged fear of harm from a Muslim gang was caused by the fact that he insulted the gang leaders, which did not implicate a protected ground, and he had been able to safely relocate within the country.
|
|||||
| Singh v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, No. 04-4880-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While an Indian alien's failure to challenge an IJ's finding that he posed a danger to U.S. security deprived an appellate court of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(d)(1) to review this ruling, which was dispositive of his asylum and withholding of removal claims, remand was warranted on the alien's claim of deferral of removal under the CAT.
|
|||||
| United States v. Andrews, No. 06-1993-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence on defendant's convictions of engaging in a racketeering organization and related offenses was affirmed where the failure to resentence him on remand was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable given his long criminal history, the seriousness of the crimes for which he was convicted, and the need to deter future criminal conduct.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
