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.
8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 264 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 Yu Zhao v. Gonzales.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yu Zhao v. Gonzales Anchor | green | “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” | 97 |
| 2 | Gomez-Palacios v. Holder | green | “as long as it is not capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” | 57 |
| 3 | Gustavo Barrios-Cantarero v. Eric Holder, Jr. | green | “abuses its discretion when it issues a decision that is capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” | 33 |
| 4 | Gomez-Palacios v. Holder | green | “this court may not overturn the bia's factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” | 29 |
| 5 | Gomez-Palacios v. Holder | green | “in reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen, this court applies a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of the basis of the alien's request for relief.” | 24 |
| 6 | Jose Mejia v. Matthew Whitaker | green | “no liberty interest exists in a motion to reopen, and therefore due process claims are not cognizable in the context of reopening proceedings.” | 11 |
| 7 | Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III | green | “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings.” | 8 |
| 8 | Sergio Lugo-Resendez v. Loretta Lynch | green | “the second element requires the litigant to establish that an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control prevented him from complying with the applicable deadline.” | 5 |
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.