In Re: Anderson
Feb 06, 2010OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
Long Beach, CA
Immigration Lawyer at Long Beach, CA
Practice Areas: Immigration, Asylum
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Granted in part; dismissed in part
From the case itself: "The IJ’s reasoning that he lacked authority was contrary to law and therefore an abuse of discretion. See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (the agency a ... buses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1015 (IJ abused discretion by denying motion for second continuance to await adjudication of petitioner’s pending [AAU] appeal of denial of I-140 petition). Moreover, the IJ further abused his discretion because he did not explain his reasoning for the denial. See Arrozal v. INS, 159 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1998) (failing to state its reasons and show proper consideration of all factors when weighing equities and denying relief is an abuse of discretion) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). We therefore grant the petition for review as to this claim. "
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7
OUTCOME: Discharged Granted
Chapter 7