green
Positive treatment
19.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Tadlock v. McDonough
But see, e.g., Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to re- mand a question to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) because “it is clear that we would be compelled to reverse the BIA’s decision if the BIA decided the matter against the applicant”), rev’d, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (re- quiring remand and noting that appellate courts generally cannot make de novo fact findings on “a matter that stat- utes place primarily in agency hands”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
George Nyamu v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
See Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir.2005); Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2001), rev’d on other grounds, 537 U.S. 12 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayorga-Esguerra v. Holder
We have subsequently applied Del Carmen Molina in another case involving “guerrilla[ ] threat[s] on account of [the applicant’s] imputed anti-guerrilla beliefs,” which were evidenced by the facts to which the applicant credibly testified, without contradiction: “the guerrillas targeted him because they believed he held anti-guerrilla sympathies; that his uncle was attacked and his cousin was killed by guerrillas because of their military affiliations; and that he is closely associated with his cousin Oswaldo, an army lieutenant.” Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2001), re…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales
(4×)
Although we “recognized that the BIA had not decided the ‘changed circumstances’ question and that ‘generally’ a court should 17874 FERNANDEZ-RUIZ v. GONZALES remand to permit that consideration,” we invoked an excep- tion to the usual rule: A court “need ‘not remand . . . when it is clear that [it] would be compelled to reverse the BIA’s decision if the BIA decided the matter against the appli- cant.’ ” Id. (quoting Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Xu Ming Li Xin Kui Yu v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
(2×)
Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir.2001), quoted, in Ventura, 537 U.S. at 15 , 123 S.Ct. 353 . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft
We considered the record evidence concerning changed country conditions — the same 1997 State Department country report about Guatemala at issue in the present petition — and concluded that the report "clearly demonstrates that the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was not rebutted." Id. at 1157. (emphasis added). 20 The Supreme Court summarily reversed our decision not to remand and held that a court of appeals may not determine in the first instance whether country conditions have changed such that a presumption of persecution is or is not rebutted.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft
We considered the record evidence concerning. changed country conditions— the same 1997 State Department country report about Guatemala at issue in the present petition- — and concluded that the report “clearly demonstrates that the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was not rebutted.” Id. at 1157. (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chowdhury v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
On the record before us, “ ‘we would be compelled to reverse the BIA’s decision if the BIA [on remand] decided the matter against the applicant.’ ” INS v. Ventura, — U.S. -,-, 123 S.Ct. 353, 355 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (quoting Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir.2001)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura
(4×)
And it decided the matter in Orlando Ventura’s favor, holding that the evidence in the record failed to show sufficient change. 264 F. 3d, at 1157-1158.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gao v. Ashcroft
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ventura v. I.N.S., 264 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Giovanni Molina-Estrada v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1155-57 (9th Cir.2001), is distinguishable.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Correas-Orellano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 , 655 n. 9 (9th Cir.2000) (“Physical harm has been consistently treated as persecution.”) (citation omitted); id. at 658 (“[W]e have consistently held that death threats alone can constitute persecution.”) (citations omitted); cf. Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2001) (“Death threats and forced recruitment efforts by a revolutionary group constitute persecution.”) (citations omitted). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giovanni Molina-Estrada v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Thus, this case is distinguishable from Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2001), in which we concluded that the petitioner had demonstrated persecution based on imputed political opinion through evidence of threats that were addressed to him "personally.”
cited
Cited "see"
Julia Floridalma Rios, Paulo Jordan Rios v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
See Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Alvarez-Villaneuva v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Ventura v. INS, 264 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arturo Daniel VELASCO-HEREDIA, AKA Arturo Velasco-Heredia, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Arturo Daniel VELASCO-HEREDIA, AKA Arturo Velasco-Heredia, Defendant-Appellant
00-50107.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 5, 2001.
Trott, Thomas, Berzon.
Published
ORDER
Further action on the petition for rehearing shall be deferred until the final dosposition of U.S. v. Buckland, No. 99-30285 is entered. The Clerk shall hold the mandate until further notice. The Opinion filed on May 10, 2001, shall be withdrawn pending further notice and is not citeable by parties.