green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.3 score
“to suddenly change course and add this requirement now is an 10 arbitrary act that is impermissible and, even giving the bia the deference it is due, should be 11 overturned.”
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Guam Contractors Association v. Sessions
to suddenly change course and add this requirement now is an 10 arbitrary act that is impermissible and, even giving the bia the deference it is due, should be 11 overturned.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gurjit Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch
See Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir.), amended by 268 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the humanitarian asylum exception “does not require the demonstration of an ongoing physical or emotional disability”).
cited
Cited "see"
Tarlock Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998, 1004, amended by 268 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jaswant Lal Shakuntla Lal Rikesh Lal v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
No. 98-71087 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted December 9, 1999--San Francisco, California Filed July 3, 2001 NOTE: SEE AMENDED OPINION AT 268 F.3d 1148 .[Copyrighted Material Omitted] William Roman Gardner and Miguel D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hang Kannha Yuk v. Ashcroft
First, there was nothing improper in the IJ’s reliance on the State Department Reports. “[A] state department re *1236 port on country conditions may be probative in a well-founded fear case.” Krastev, 292 F.3d at 1276-77 ; see also Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998, 1023 (9th Cir.) (“Our case law well establishes that the country report from our Department of State is the most appropriate and perhaps best resource, for determining country conditions.” (internal quotations omitted)), amended by, 268 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.2001); Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231, 235 (3d Cir.2003) (“[T]he Count…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jaswant LAL; Shakuntla Lal; Rikesh Lal, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
98-71087.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 9, 2001.
268 F.3d 1148
William Roman Gardner and Miguel D. Gadda, San Francisco, California, for the petitioners., David W. Ogden, Acting Attorney General, Civil Division; Kristen A. Giuffreda, Senior Litigation Counsel; and John P. Moran, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, for the respondent.
Fletcher, O'Scannlain, Hawkins.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Guam (1)
ORDER
The Government’s petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. We amend the Opinion filed July 3, 2001, and appearing at page 998.
Add a footnote at p. 1003 at the end of the last sentence before section “a.” (“Such a requirement is an untenable interpretation of the exception.”):
“The government in its petition for rehearing before the panel states ‘[W]e do not seek to disturb the relief that this court awarded to petitioners, nor do we seek to disturb the essential judicial underpinnings for that relief (supra note 3).’ Petition For Rehearing at 7. It requests simply that we not hold that the BIA has changed its interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(i)(ii) (1999) to require that ongoing disability be shown. Rather, the BIA continues to see it as a factor to be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances and simply should have granted relief in this case after reviewing all the factors. We accept the government’s view that the BIA did not interpret the regulation to require ongoing disability.”
Add a footnote to p. 1019 of Judge O’Seannlain’s dissent, at the end of the sentence beginning “Rather than establishing ... ,” as follows:
“Indeed, the government states precisely this view in its petition for rehearing, as the majority acknowledges. Maj. op. at n. 3.”
[*1149] No further petition for rehearing will be entertained.