password
username
Sponsored by CakeMail, an email marketing software
Newsletter preview


May 12, 2008

Table of Contents

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Mendez v. Mukasey

ATTORNEY'S FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ETHICS & DISCIPLINARY CODE, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Bennett v. Mukasey

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Singh v. US Dep't of Homeland Sec.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Mendez v. Mukasey, No. 06-0032
Petition for review of a denial of cancellation of removal on grounds that petitioner had not demonstrated that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his US citizen children is dismissed where: 1) under binding precedential decisions, the determination of whether exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was present for the purposes of cancellation of removal is committed to the Attorney General's discretion; and 2) thus, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review such a determination. Read more...

ATTORNEY'S FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ETHICS & DISCIPLINARY CODE, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, IMMIGRATION LAW
Bennett v. Mukasey, No. 06-2480
Motion to recall a mandate and reinstate a petition for review of a BIA decision is granted where a lawyer's practice of accepting an initial retainer fee and then deliberately failing to take required action due to non-payment of additional fees, thereby permitting his client's petition to be dismissed, was unacceptable. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Singh v. US Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 06-5616
Petition for review of an order removing petitioner on ground that he had committed a crime of moral turpitude, and denying his application for cancellation of removal, is dismissed in part and denied in part where the agency did not err in finding that: 1) the government satisfied its burden to present "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" that petitioner was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude; and 2) the IJ did not exceed his allowable discretion in denying a continuance. (Amended Opinion) Read more...


You are currently subscribed to 2nd-caselaw as: kallyorama@gmail.com .
To manage your newsletter accounts go to: http://newsletters.findlaw.com/nl/sub/review-account.jsp
or to ***, send a blank email to leave-3718471-1395323.1c6e672ddbfbadc169c9ab5296d07303@info.legalminds.org