 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Agredano v. US Customs Serv., No. 05-55186,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellants' arrest and imprisonment occurred in Mexico, the FTCA's foreign country exception to liability set forth in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(k) immunized the United States from suit for tortious conduct. A corporation, which had a contract with the United States, had no contractual duty to inspect for contraband a car purchased by appellants.
|
|||||
| Ahmed v. Gonzales, No. 03-74603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal for two reasons: (1) because he engaged in terrorist activity, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(3)(B); and (2) because he assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of others on account of their political opinion, 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(i).
|
|||||
| Ahmed v. Gonzales, No. 05-73228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum based upon a conclusion that an alien failed to show past persecution because threats, interrogations, and a mob attack on alien's car did not rise, cumulatively or otherwise, to level of past persecution. Because alien was not eligible for asylum, he was not eligible for withholding of removal.
|
|||||
| Aisea Bole Kaimacuata v. Gonzales, Nos. 04-75953, 05-70483,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Memorandum Withdrawn; February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA correctly found that Fiji citizen failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel as to applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; however, remand was necessary based on BIA's abuse of discretion in assessing credibility of alien's statements regarding voluntary departure in declaration filed with motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| Arriaga-Brito v. Gonzales, No. 05-73871,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not violate aliens' due process rights when it denied their motion to accept an untimely brief because the record showed that the briefing schedule was mailed to the address of record and the BIA did not summarily dismiss the aliens' appeal from the denial of their application for cancellation of removal for failure to file a timely brief.
|
|||||
| Ayala-Hernandez v. Gonzales, No. 05-77077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Baltazar v. Gonzales, No. 04-75685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Belmontes v. Gonzales, No. 05-71034,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Calence, LLC v. Dimension Data Holdings, PLC, No. 06-35646,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction was affirmed because the minimal evidence of ongoing harm plaintiff cited did not render the district court's finding that there was no threat of irreparable harm clearly erroneous and defendants presented evidence regarding the continued ability of plaintiff's office to serve its customers.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
