 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chimbili v. Mukasey, 06-2614-ag(L); 06-4456-ag(con) NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where motion for reconsideration and reopening was based on contention that IJ, who interposed questions at various points during hearing, violated alien's due process rights, due process claim failed because there was no indication that IJ was biased against alien, prevented alien from testifying, or otherwise deprived alien of right to be heard.
|
|||||
| Figueroa v. Weisenfreund, NO. 06-5705-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former city employee's First Amendment retaliation claim failed because a gap of almost one year between employee's protected speech and employee's termination was too long to establish a causal connection and complaints about employee's work performance established that the employee would have been fired even in the absence of protected speech.
|
|||||
| Gjoka v. INS, 07-0601-ag, NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B), IJ's adverse credibility determination was sufficiently supported by alien's attempt to corroborate his account of a police beating with a doctor's letter that partially contradicted alien's testimony and by inconsistencies in alien's testimony regarding letters in which alien's father told alien not to come back.
|
|||||
| Guo Liang Chen v. Mukasey, 06-4941-ag, NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) supported an adverse credibility finding to deny asylum and related relief for a Chinese alien because there were several discrepancies in his testimony, particularly as to an alleged second encounter with a government official and whether he had escaped from detention or was released.
|
|||||
| Jian Hua Wang v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, Docket No. 06-5554-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Chinese asylum applicant did not satisfy his burden of proving due diligence, BIA did not err in rejecting his argument that 90-day deadline for filing motion to reopen should be equitably tolled. Applicant also did not demonstrate changed circumstances for purpose of meeting requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i) exception to deadline.
|
|||||
| Jinping Lin v. Mukasey, 07-1792-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where aliens' motion to reopen was untimely under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(7)(C), BIA properly refused to equitably toll the 90-day deadline because the motion to reopen was filed more than two years after aliens learned that BIA dismissed their appeal and aliens did not exercise due diligence in addressing alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| Keqaj v. Mukasey, 06-5762-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen filed by Albanian aliens because the motion was filed well beyond the 90 day deadline of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and equitable tolling was not warranted since the aliens had prior notice of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but did not exercise due diligence in raising it.
|
|||||
| Muchnick v. Thomson Corp. (In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig.), Docket Nos. 05-5943-cv(L); 06-0223(CON),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where judges learned that they were parties to a class suit due to possession of a small financial interest in its subject matter, and where the judges had devoted substantial time to consideration of that case, but promptly divested themselves of the otherwise disqualifying financial interests, recusal was not required under 28 U.S.C.S. § 455(f).
|
|||||
| Muchnick v. Thomson Corp. (In re: Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig.), Docket Nos. 05-5943-cv(L), 06-0223-cv(CON) ** The appeal filed under Docket No. 06-0223-cv(CON) was dismissed by Court Order on May 17, 2006.,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The overwhelming majority of class members' claims concerned the infringement of unregistered copyrights and the district court lacked jurisdiction over those claims. Therefore, the appellate court vacated the class certification and settlement approval and remanded the case.
|
|||||
| Qiang Chen v. United States AG, 07-0599-ag, NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's denial of alien's asylum application was vacated and alien's case was remanded because BIA did not consider State Department reports indicating that Falun Gong practitioners were subject to severe mistreatment in China and BIA did not articulate whether alien's situation was different from that of Falun Gong practitioners who were persecuted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
