green
Positive treatment
32.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tsegmed v. Sessions
Nonetheless, we retain the authority to review “constitutional claims or questions of law related to the timely filing of an asylum application.” Bitsin v. Holder, 719 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D)). ‘We have interpreted this exception to apply ‘to strictly legal controversies,’ by which we ‘mean[] that the parties contest a legal issue, and that the alien wins if the law provides what he says it does and loses if it provides what the agency says it does.’ ” Id. at 625-26 (quoting Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bathusi Musa v. Loretta Lynch
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
She recognizes that we lack jurisdiction to review such a determination absent a related legal or constitutional argument, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Almutairi v. Holder, 722 F.3d 996, 1002 (7th Cir.2013); Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964-65 (7th Cir.2010), so she tries to frame her disagreement with the agency as a legal issue.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luis Gutierrez-Rostran v. Loretta Lynch
Regarding the former challenge, to prevail given the untimeliness of the application he would have to show that the immigration court or the Board had committed a legal error, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D); Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964-65 (7th Cir.2010), and he hasn’t done that.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pe Paul Goromou v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
(2×)
An “IJ’s conclusion that [an alien] lacked sufficient credible evidence to meet the materiality standard is not a question of law.” Abraham v. Holder, 647 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir.2011) (citing Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that because the Seventh Circuit limits § 1262(a)(2)(D) to strictly legal controversies, it is not authorized to review applications of law to facts); Khan v. Filip, 554 F.3d 681, 687-89 (7th Cir.2009) (concluding that the Seventh Circuit’s review under § 1252(a)(2)(D) is limited to “pure” questions of law); Vasile v. Gonzales, 417…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fidel Munoz-Avila v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Pathmakanthan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 618, 625 (7th Cir.2010); Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir.2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andi Tjong v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3); Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tjong v. Holder
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3); Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir.2010). (7th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bao Tai Nian v. Holder
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The proceedings would more aptly be called "asylum and withholding of removal and protection under the CAT-only.” See Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir.2010) ("the phrase ['asylum-only'] is a misnomer” because the alien may also ask for withholding of removal). 2 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sarhan v. Holder
Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abraham v. Holder
(2×)
Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Valentin Bitsin v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D). 18 We have interpreted *626 this exception to apply “to strictly legal controversies,” by which we “mean[ ] that the parties contest a legal issue, and that the alien wins if the law provides what he says it does and loses if it provides what the agency says it does.” Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir.2010).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Weiping Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See, e.g., Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2010).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Weiping Chen v. Holder
See, e.g., Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir.2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Restrepo
v.
Holder
v.
Holder
08-4029.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Aug 25, 2010.
Published
Citer courts: D. Massachusetts (1)
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 25, 2010
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 08-4029
LUIS ARMANDO PAEZ RESTREPO, et al., Petitioners, Petition for Review of an v. Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Order
The opinion of this court issued on June 28, 2010, is amended by deleting the quotation marks around the phrase “displaying attributes visible to passers-by” on the last two lines of page 4 of the slip opinion. The sentence now reads:
The Board doubted that farmers are a “visible” group, using “visible” in the sense of displaying attributes apparent to passers-by.