LexisNexis
  

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.


   Federal Courts - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - February 23, 2007

  
Carranza v. Gomez, No. 05-16883, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Chouanson Chang v. Gonzales, No. 05-70452, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Collins v. Norwood, No. 06-55245, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Cortez-Hernandez v. Gonzales, No. 05-74191, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Del Aquila-Rodas v. Gonzales, No. 04-75233, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that an alien was not eligible for deferral of removal under CAT because the alien's single detention by the government of Guatemala had occurred 23 years ago and the alien failed to offer any evidence that the Guatemalan government would seek to harm him upon his return.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Felipe-Acosta v. Gonzales, No. 06-72238, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Fuentes v. Gonzales, No. 05-77144, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Gonzalez Perez v. Gonzales, No. 05-76757, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: The court lacked jurisdiction to review IJ's discretionary determination that an alien failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen daughter on alien's application for cancellation of removal. Alien's constitutional challenge to the BIA's streamlining procedures was foreclosed by the court's precedent.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Hernandez v. Garcia, No. 04-55558, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Hernandez v. Gonzales, No. 04-76302, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Appellate court was unable to determine whether Immigration Judge made finding of past persecution or did not do so. Because IJ did not make an adequate finding, one way or the other, court could not determine whether the IJ applied a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution which the government would have been required to rebut.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  Copyright© 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.