green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.5 score
“when the bia conducts 21 a de novo review of the ij's decision, as here, we review the bia's decision rather than the ij's, 22 except to the extent that the bia expressly adopts the ij's ruling.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hanan v. USCIS
when the bia conducts 21 a de novo review of the ij's decision, as here, we review the bia's decision rather than the ij's, 22 except to the extent that the bia expressly adopts the ij's ruling.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mario Flores Molina v. Merrick Garland
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.), as amended, 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that “[e]vidence of harm to individuals who held the same political positions” to the petitioner supported a finding of past persecution).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stoll III v. Cowan
See 3 generally, Salazar-Paucar v. I.N.S., 281 F.3d 1069, 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (When the “BIA 4 conducts a de novo review of the IJ's [Immigration Judge] decision,” the district court reviews 5 “the BIA's decision rather than the IJ's, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ's 6 ruling.”) amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2002); Alaelua v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th 7 Cir. 1995) (reviewing both the BIA and Immigration Judge's decisions when it is clear that the 8 BIA decision “clearly incorporates” the Immigration Judge's decision).
cited
Cited "see"
Kaur v. Holder
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1074-75 (9th Cir.), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002); Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 430 ; INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jacqueline Canales-Vargas v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
(2×)
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002); see also Gardozor-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 430 , 107 S.Ct. 1207 ; INS v. Stevie, 467 U.S. 407, 424 , 104 S.Ct. 2489 , 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Chinwendu v. Ashcroft
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.), amended by, 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002); Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Xuan Wang v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2002), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Juarez-Guerra v. Ashcroft
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1074 , amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baljit Singh v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
(2×)
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir.), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002). 12 To support an adverse credibility determination, the BIA must have "a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner's credibility, and must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief." Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir.1998)).
cited
Cited "see"
Singh v. Immigration Naturalization & Service
See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1074 , amended, by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002); Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mang Khup v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
See, e.g., Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.) (holding that death threats together with beatings of family members and murders of political counterparts constitute past persecution), as amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002); see also Thomas v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “threats of violence and death are enough to constitute persecution”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Ernesto Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that “[i]n asylum and withholding of deportation cases, we have consistently held that de…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shergill v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Past persecution triggers a presumption that an applicant is entitled to withholding of deportation. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (b)(l)(i) (“If the applicant is determined to have suffered past persecution in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, it shall be presumed that the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened in the future in the country of removal on the basis of the original claim.”); see also Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that threats to life or …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dagoberto Hermes Salazar-Paucar
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
99-71306.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 9, 2002.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)
Dagoberto Hermes SALAZAR-PAUCAR, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 99-71306.
No. 00-70811.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 15, 2001.
Filed February 28, 2002.
Amended May 9, 2002.
Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for the petitioner.
James A. Hunolt, Heather R. Phillips, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for the respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
PAEZ, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
1
The opinion of this court filed in this case on February 28, 2002, slip op. at 3329 (281 F.3d 1069), is amended as follows:
2
At slip op. at 3346, first full paragraph after "V. CONCLUSION," delete "for a grant of asylum," and replace with "for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion whether to grant Petitioner asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1164 (9th Cir.1999)."
3
Delete "also" in the following sentence, to read: "The application for withholding of deportation is granted."
4
With these amendments, the panel has unanimously voted to deny panel rehearing. The petition for panel rehearing in 99-71306 is denied.