Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Fidelis Osuchukwu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fidelis Osuchukwu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service Anchor | green | “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” | 6 |
| 2 | Garcia v. Holder | green | “the fact that the alien is not to blame for the ambiguity surrounding his criminal conviction does not relieve him of his obligation to prove eligibility for discretionary relief.” | 3 |
| 3 | Salem v. Holder | green | “show that he has not been convicted of the underlying criminal offense.” | 3 |
| 4 | Fidelis Osuchukwu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “deems it in error, so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” | 3 |
| 5 | Fidelis Osuchukwu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” | 3 |
| 6 | Gaspar Esparza Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr. | green | “relating to a controlled substance” | 3 |
| 7 | Jean-Louis v. Attorney General of the United States | green | “conducted a limited factual inquiry, examining the record of conviction for the narrow purpose of determining the specific elements under which the defendant was convicted.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.