Jose Armando Barboza-Blanco Gerson Armando Barboza-Hernandez v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 2 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Jose Armando Barboza-Blanco Gerson Armando Barboza-Hernandez v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 2 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“section 11 does not require the disclosure of all information a 3 potential investor might take into account when making his decision . . .”
38 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re BioAge Labs, Inc., Securities Litigation (cand, 2025-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In re BioAge Labs, Inc., Securities Litigation (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
section 11 does not require the disclosure of all information a 3 potential investor might take into account when making his decision . . .
cited Cited "see" (SS) Mortera v. Commissioner of Social Security
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford, 950 2 F.3d at 1156.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." (SS) Hernandez DeLeon v. Commissioner of Social Security
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
Additionally, “[t]he court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when 1 the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Id.; see, e.g., Edlund, 253 2 F.3d at 1156 (“If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court may 3 not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.” (citations omitted)). 4 Nonetheless, “the Commissioner’s decision ‘cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a 5 specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Sousa v. Callahan, 6 143 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jose Armando Barboza-Blanco Gerson Armando Barboza-Hernandez
v.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
92-70567.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 13, 1993.
2 F.3d 1156
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 77%
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)

2 F.3d 1156

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Jose Armando BARBOZA-BLANCO; Gerson Armando
Barboza-Hernandez, Petitioners,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 92-70567.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 6, 1993.[*]
Decided Aug. 13, 1993.

Before NORRIS, WIGGINS and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

The BIA affirmed the immigration judge's order of deportation on June 5, 1992. On August 14, 1992, Barboza-Blanco filed a motion to reopen before the BIA. Subsequently, on August 17, 1992, Barboza-Blanco filed this petition for review.

3

The motion to reopen rendered the decision of the BIA nonfinal for purposes of review in this court. Chu v. INS, 875 F.2d 777, 779-80 (9th Cir.1989); Fayazi-Azad v. INS, 792 F.2d 873, 874 (9th Cir.1986); Hyun Joon Chung v. INS, 720 F.2d 1471, 1474 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1216 (1984). We therefore lack jurisdiction to hear the merits of Barboza-Blanco's petition.

4

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in Ogio v. INS, No. 92-70216 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 1993), we reject the government's argument that the Chu line of cases has not survived Congress's passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-649.

5

PETITION DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit R. 36-3