green
Positive treatment
Trending · 112 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
63.4 score
“once the ins makes a finding that an offense constitutes a particularly serious crime, a separate determination of danger to the community is not required.”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
R-A-M
once . . . a finding that an offense constitutes a particularly serious crime, a separate determination of danger to the community is not required.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder
once the ins makes a finding that an offense constitutes a particularly serious crime, a separate determination of danger to the community is not required.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eva Gonzalez Romo v. William Barr
Kankamalage v. I.N.S., 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 The footnote reads “In effect, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that [§ 1227(a)(2)(A)] is broader in its coverage of crimes involving moral turpitude than [§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)], because it would include inchoate offenses, such as solicitation and facilitation, that are not specifically enumerated in [§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)], which lists only attempts and conspiracies.” Matter of Vo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 426 , 429 n.4 (BIA 2011). 8 GONZALEZ ROMO V.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation
Although the EPA clarified the term “any area” in its 2010 amendments to mean “any portion of a nonattain ment or maintenance area, including the local area affected by the transportation project,” the EPA did not clearly indicate that this interpretation should apply retroactively. 75 Fed.Reg. at 14,276; cf. Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003) (observing that a regulation may not apply retroactively unless it “unambiguously directs retroactive application”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nrdc v. Usdot
Reg. at 14,276; cf. Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003) (observing that a regulation may not apply retroactively unless it “unambiguously directs retroactive application”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Albaro Elias Tista v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder
(2×)
However, we review de novo both “purely legal questions” and “mixed questions of law and fact requiring us to exercise judgment about legal principles.” United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.2010); Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delgado v. Holder
(2×)
Although “[t]he BIA’s interpretation of immigration laws is entitled to deference ..., we are not obligated to accept an.interpretation clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003); see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delgado v. Holder
Although “[t]he BIA’s interpretation of immigration laws is entitled to deference . . . , we are not obligated to accept an interpretation clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the stat- ute.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003); see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vasquez-Castillion v. Holder
We review de novo questions of law, Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federiso v. Holder
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CCA Associates v. United States
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. 244 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder
The BIA’s interpretation of immigration laws is “entitled to deference.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003). *978 III Velasco contends that the BIA and IJ erred by concluding that she failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground if she was forced to return to Mexico. 2 Specifically, Velasco contends that she would suffer harm at the hands of the smugglers due to her membership in a particular social group: former material witnesses for the United States government. 3 Velasco’s contention is without merit and she is n…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Veronica Velasco Cervantes v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
The BIA’s interpretation of immigration laws is “entitled to deference.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvarez-Adalguiza v. Holder
We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and legal questions and due process claims de novo, Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir.2003); Ngongo v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Szalai v. Holder
The government argues that the BIA’s interpretation of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) is entitled to such deference here, whereas Petitioner points out that the BIA’s interpretation is due no deference when its con- struction is contrary to the statute’s “plain and sensible meaning.” See Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We will not defer to the BIA when its construction of a statute defies its ‘plain and sensible meaning.’ Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 9096 SZALAI v. HOLDER B.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Szalai v. Holder
(2×)
The government argues that the BIA’s interpretation of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) is entitled to such deference here, whereas Petitioner points out that the BIA’s interpretation is due no deference when its construction is contrary to the statute’s "plain and sensible meaning.” See Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir.2008) (“We will not defer to the BIA when its construction of a statute defies its plain and sensible meaning.’ Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003)”); Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2005) (applying Chevro…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mota v. Mukasey
However, we are not obligated to accept an interpretation clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mota v. Mukasey
However, we are not obligated to accept an interpretation clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Prieto-Romero v. Clark
We will not defer to the BIA when its construction of a statute defies its “plain and sensible meaning.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Prieto-Romero v. Clark
We will not defer to the BIA when its construction of a statute defies its “plain and sensible meaning.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mier-Fiorito v. Mukasey
“We review the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act de novo.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahir v. Mukasey
“We review the [Board’s] determination of purely legal questions regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act de novo.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahir v. Mukasey
“We review the [Board’s] determination of purely legal questions regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act de novo.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey
Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1287 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003)) (equal protection); Khup, 376 F.3d at 902 (citing Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858, 869 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc)) (due process).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Andoval Luna v. Mukasey
Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1287 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003)) (equal protection); Khup, 376 F.3d at 902 (citing Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)) (due process).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maitamei v. Mukasey
This court reviews questions of law de novo, see Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir.2003), and reviews factual findings for substantial evidence, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendez-Mendez v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendez-Mendez v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Singh v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ang v. Mukasey
This court reviews questions of law de novo, see Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir.2003), and reviews factual findings for substantial evidence, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vizcarra Ayala v. Mukasey
Kanka- malage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nosa v. Mukasey
Kankwmalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estrada-Rodriguez v. Mukasey
Although BIA interpretations of immigration stat *520 utes are entitled to some deference, Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003), “interpretations promulgated in a non-precedential manner are ‘beyond the Chevron pale.’ ” Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226 , 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arteaga v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estrada-Rodriguez v. Mukasey
Although BIA interpreta- tions of immigration statutes are entitled to some deference, Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003), “in- terpretations promulgated in a non-precedential manner are ‘beyond the Chevron pale.’ ” Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226 (2001)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arteaga v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kaburu v. Mukasey
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Camins v. Gonzales
Cyr, 533 U.S. at 325 , 121 S.Ct. 2271 ; see also Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 941, 945 (9th Cir.2005) (Fisher, J., concurring); Kankamalage, 335 F.3d at 863.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Camins v. Gonzales
See, e.g., Sinotes-Cruz, 468 F.3d at 1202-03 (“[P]art B of the stop-time rule of § 1229b(d)(1) does not apply retroactively to the seven-year continuous resi- dence requirement of § 1229b(a)(2) for an alien who pled guilty before the enactment of IIRIRA and was eligible for discretionary relief at the time IIRIRA became effective.”); Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 860, 863 (9th Cir. 2003) (immigration regulation promulgated in 1990, which made aliens convicted of “a particularly serious crime” ineligible for asylum, did not apply retroactively to an alien who pled guilty to robber…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MacArio Moreno-Morante v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
Although the agency’s interpretation of immigration laws is entitled to deference, such deference is required only “after we determine that a statute is ambiguous.” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moreno-Mornate v. Gonzales
Although the agency’s interpretation of immigration laws is entitled to deference, such deference is required only “after we determine that a statute is ambiguous.” Kankamal- age v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales
We review “determination of purely legal questions regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act de novo,” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003), “the same standard we apply when reviewing a district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition . . . [except that] we now review the BIA’s decision, not the district court’s orders.” Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (inter- nal citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. Gonzales
However, "[t]he BIA's interpretation of immigration laws is entitled to deference.” See Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edgar Hernandez-Gil v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
See Colindres-Aguilar v. INS, 819 F.2d 259, 261 (9th Cir.1987); see also de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004); Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales
See Colindres-Aguilar v. INS, 819 F.2d 259, 261 (9th Cir. 1987); see also De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 2004); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004); Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003). 1930 HERNANDEZ-GIL v. GONZALES asked if he was prepared to “go forward at this time,” Hernandez-Gil responded, “No.” The IJ then asked Hernandez-Gil if he “would like a continuance to get with an attorney,” to which Hernandez-Gil said, “Yes.” The IJ, how- ever, denied the application for a continuance, explaining that because Hernandez-…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rafael Maldonado-Galindo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maldonaldo-Galindo v. Gonzales
Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003) (cita- tion omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Olea-Reyes v. Gonzales
Where a statute is ambiguous, we defer to the interpretation of the agency charged with administering the statute, as long as its interpretation is not “clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute,” Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.2003), or in conflict with this Court’s precedent, Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Xu Ming Li Xin Kui Yu
v.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
v.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
77-169-373.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 7, 2003.
335 F.3d 858
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Board of Immigration Appeals (1) · Ninth Circuit (1)
XU MING LI; Xin Kui Yu, Petitioners,
v.
John ASHCROFT,[*] Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 00-70157.
No. Ajn-ooz-ute.
No. Awl-ilk-yjf.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 7, 2003.
ORDER
SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
Notes:
*
John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor, Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States, Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(2)