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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 22 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 Gilberto Mauel Mendez-Reyes v. Attorney General of the United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gilberto Mauel Mendez-Reyes v. Attorney General of the United States Anchor | green | “we apply substantial evidence review to agency findings of fact, departing from factual findings only where a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to arrive at a contrary conclusion.” | 14 |
| 2 | Nen Ying Wang v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States James Ziglar, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “subject to established principles of deference.” | 5 |
| 3 | Nen Ying Wang v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States James Ziglar, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “we review the bia's legal determinations de novo, subject to established principles of deference.” | 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.