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...