Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query marriage returned 2040 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This case is a powerful indictment of the criminal justice system. Our social and penal policies are failing to alleviate alcohol abuse on Indian reservations and the crime to which it gives rise. Jr. (
	OPINION/ORDER BAD MARRIAGE 1903 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bad Marriage was indicted in March 2003 on a charge of aggravated sexual assault in violation of 18 U.S.C. งง 2241(a)(1) and 1153. He was charged in a superseding information with assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Bad Marriage was released from tribal jail to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Holding that
	OPINION/ORDER 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
	OPINION/ORDER This district court's judgment declared that Huff was the legal spouse of William N. This case arose when the Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management (
	SHAHAR V. BOWERS This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="971"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-1532.htm">99-1532 -- BURKS V. APFEL -- 11/20/2000<BR></A><BR> Finding that plaintiff Vergie Burks was not entitled to Social Security widow's insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/088ADB1589395F3F8825716500567FE7/$file/0556040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeal the district court's orders1 which (a) abstained as to their claim that three sections of the California law relating to marriage are unconstitutional. 2 and (b) ruled adversely to them on their claims that two sections of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)3 are likewise unconstitutional. BACKGROUND It is agreed: Smelt and Hammer are both males who wish to obtain a California marriage license and to marry each other in that state. They were denied a license both times </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3377_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was charged in a three count superceding indictment with conspiracy to commit marriage fraud. The first two counts were based on allegations that Defendant. The third count was based on a letter that Defendant sent to Kirklin while he was in jail pending trial. Melliani had known Defendant while she was also living in Morocco. Kirklin and Defendant were strangers. Defendant and Kirklin were married. Defendant presented the visa to United States Immigration in Chicago and was admitted into the United States as a spouse of a United States citizen. She claims to have felt sorry for him. Defendant claims to have corresponded with her on a regular basis. There was evidence that Defendant had a sexual relationship with another woman during the time he was married to Kirklin. 4 No. 05 3377 On June 16. Defendant and Melliani were jointly charged with conspiracy to commit marriage fraud. Defendant also was charged with a substantive count of marriage fraud. Both counts against Defendant were based on his marriage to Dianna Kirklin in December 2000. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/059A7171201E1BD188256BFF00573DFA/$file/9970396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Agyeman claims that he was denied a full and fair hearing because he was not given adequate instructions as to how to proceed with his applications for relief. That the denial of adjustment of status was predicated on his inability to procure his wife's attendance at the deportation hearing to testify on his behalf. Which was approved in 1992. Agyeman's application for adjustment of status was denied because the couple failed to attend the scheduled interview and submit Agyeman's medical examination. Levy was unable to attend the interview because she was hospitalized for bipolar disorder at the time. 10350 AGYEMAN v. The IJ instructed Agyeman that his wife's testimony was mandatory to determine the bona fides of their marriage. The IJ asked whether Levy was still hospitalized. The IJ stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/993133P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The central issue in this case is the Social Security Administration's treatment of a Missouri annulment decree. The important facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff2 was raped in September of 1953. Although she was fifteen and therefore not capable of marrying without parental consent. Everett was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.1 The court affirms the summary judgment for the Attorney General on Shahar's free expression and equal protection claims for reasons set out by Judges Kravitch and Morgan in their separate opinions. Shahar's claim of violation of substantive due process is not substantially presented on appeal. Worked as a law clerk in the Department of Law during the summer of 1990. clerkship she told other clerks that she was a lesbian. Then that issue would have to be addressed. 1 Shahar was working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0181p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal involves an interpleader action filed by a pension plan seeking a declaration of which of two claimants is decedent. Finding that Rita is Douglas Durden's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85C81264C15934B688256E55007CF2EC/$file/0270956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That an individual in a marriage that cannot legally be registered in China is not a spouse. Is contrary to the relatively recent Congressional amendment granting asylum status to victims of China's oppressive population control policy. 8 U.S.C. ง 1101(a)(42)(B).1 Ma contends that the marriage restriction is an integral part of the policy that Congress targeted and that in China a pregnancy occurring during a marriage that is not registered is subject to abortion. He maintains that the BIA's decision is based on an 1 Section 101(a)(42)(B) provides in relevant part: For purposes of determinations under this chapter. Shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion. A person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure. Or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. Namely that there is no connection between the inability to obtain registration from the Chinese government for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE9F1815D464382788256DB7007B0E19/$file/0270988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hernandez applied for suspension of deportation under a provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D0A1BD169C6A0C488256E68007D642C/$file/0370421.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nakamoto obtained an immediate relative status visa on the basis of her marriage to Del Rosario and was admitted to the United States on March 27. This case raises a preliminary question of whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision. We conclude that because the determination under ง 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) is not committed entirely to the Attorney General's discretion. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision in this case. We further conclude that the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence and therefore deny Nakamoto's petition for review. ASHCROFT was twenty two when she began corresponding with her future husband. Were married in June 1997. The IJ determined that the INS had met its initial burden of proof and that the Hawaii family court's annulment order and the letters submitted as evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983455.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Will L. Circuit Judge: The ultimate question in this case is whether a state divorce court can defease the United States of its interest in property forfeited under the criminal forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. ง 982 (1994) and 21 U.S.C. ง 853 (1994). Or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed. Knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10. 000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity. The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under title 18. Or imprisonment for not more than ten years or both. (2) The court may impose an alternate fine to that imposable under paragraph (1) of not more than twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction. .... (d) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are ญ (1) that the offense under this section takes place in the United States . . . . .... (f) As used in this section ญ (1) the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were unable to obtain a marriage license because Chaiffetz's incarceration made it impossible for him to comply with an Ohio statute requiring both applicants for a marriage license to appear personally before the probate court. After the settlement was obtained. No. 01 4035 entered an order stating that plaintiffs' request for an injunction was moot. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that they were protected by qualified immunity and refused to award attorney's fees because plaintiffs were not prevailing parties within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. ง 1988. (2) finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. I. Ira Chaiffetz and Laura Toms (now Laura Chaiffetz) became engaged while Chaiffetz was incarcerated at the Warren Correctional Institution (WCI) in Warren County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-3110.htm">02-3110 -- SMITH V. BARNHART -- 03/06/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Marjorie Smith challenges the decision of the Commissioner denying her benefits as a widow or surviving divorced spouse. We reverse and direct the award of benefits. <p> <strong>Background</strong> <p> Marjorie Smith was married to Harry Smith in Kansas on September 28. Harry was a wanderer and spent extended periods of time away from home. When their last child was conceived. This last child was listed on her birth certificate as Harry's legitimate child. Marjorie was never aware of any efforts by Harry to divorce her. <p> Nonetheless. Harry and Earlene were then divorced on October 19. Only Harry's legitimate children were eligible for benefits. Such that earlier marriages are presumed to have ended in divorce absent evidence to the contrary. <em> See Norton v. There was no evidence Marjorie and Harry had divorced. Neither was there conclusive evidence that he had not obtained a divorce in one of the many counties where he had resided. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3391.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Earl A. Dickey asserts that since she is the common law widow of James L. She is entitled to survivor annuity benefits as Mr. Dickey's claim based on its finding that she had failed to establish that she was married to Mr. Dickey to reach its determination that the two were not married at the time of Mr. Died without a will in the District of Columbia on February 3. Dickey was employed by the federal government at the time of his death. Dickey were common law husband and wife from late April 1984. The witnesses stated that it was their understanding that Ms. Who was returning home from college. Dickey had been living together was not big enough to accommodate both them and her son. When her son was not with them. Dickey after she rented the 6th Street apartment was called into question by the affidavits of her witnesses. Asserted that the leasing of a second residence was precipitated by Ms. To further demonstrate that she was the common law wife of Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60323.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: Jingeshkumar Patel petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA's) order affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ's) determination that he is a removable alien and for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Patel's conditional resident status was based on his April 28. Patel claims that he and his wife were unable to reconcile their cultural differences regarding their marriage and thus. Although he was no longer married to Sonal. Because she is listed as either Sonal Patel or Sonelle Patel throughout the administrative record. The IJ held that Patel was removable under งง 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) and 1227(a)(1)(G) and granted Patel a 60 day period of voluntary departure. The case was consolidated with his petition for review of the BIA's decision in his direct appeal. Patel first argues that his removal proceedings were rendered fundamentally unfair because the IJ did not require the government to establish his removability by clear and convincing evidence before placing the burden on Patel to demonstrate his eligibility for a waiver of that removability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/033124p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chen's primary argument is that he is eligible for asylum based on his fiancee's forced abortion at the hands of Chinese government officials. Chen relies on a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that the spouse of a person who was forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization is deemed under a 1996 amendment to 8 U.S.C. ง 1101(a)(42) to have suffered past persecution. While he and his fiancee were never married. They would have married The Honorable J. Which was instituted as part of the country's oppressive population control program. Chen contends China's refusal to permit him to marry constituted persecution and that therefore the BIA's decision to limit C Y Z to married persons is irrational and arbitrary and must be rejected. Is reasonable. Are both natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China. Chen was 19 and Chen Gui was 18. The couple discovered that Chen Gui was pregnant. Since the legal age to marry was 25 for men and 23 for women. 1 We note that officially the minimum age for marriage in China appears to be 22 for men and 20 for women. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-60323.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Jingeshkumar Patel petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA's) order affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ's) determination that he is a removable alien and for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Patel's conditional resident status was based on his April 28. Patel claims that he and his wife were unable to reconcile their cultural differences regarding their marriage and thus. Although he was no longer married to Sonal. Because she is listed as either Sonal Patel or Sonelle Patel throughout the administrative record. The IJ held that Patel was removable under งง 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) and 1227(a)(1)(G) and granted Patel a 60 day period of voluntary departure. The case was consolidated with his petition for review of the BIA's decision in his direct appeal. Patel first argues that his removal proceedings were rendered fundamentally unfair because the IJ did not require the government to establish his removability by clear and convincing evidence before placing the burden on Patel to demonstrate his eligibility for a waiver of that removability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3320.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded a rational juror could have found that Defendant entered into a sham marriage to evade the immigration laws. We have jurisdiction. We take the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government to determine whether a reasonable jury could have found Defendant guilty of marriage fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Was to assist Pakistani men in obtaining permanent resident cards. Porter Jamil explained to Herbert that while she would not have to live with Defendant. She would have to generate joint paperwork. The pictures were to be given to immigration officials in order to prove the couple married. Defendant's Form I 485 showed his immigration status and authorized stay in the United States was to expire on July 5. Defendant and Herbert were placed under oath. Herbert eventually admitted she was not physically living in Lenexa at the time of the CIS interview. That most of these documents were generated after immigration officials contacted her on January 27. Informed her they were investigating her marriage to Defendant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022368P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Geronima Mayo appeals a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding that she is not eligible for admission into the United States. The BIA reversed an immigration judge's ruling that found Mayo did not materially misrepresent herself and was thus eligible to enter the country. I. Geronima Mayo is a native of the Philippines. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deferred her entry because an INS agent found pictures suggesting that she was married. Her case was transferred to Minnesota. Mayo was without counsel and had difficulty speaking English. She claimed for the first time on appeal that the marriage was void because her marriage ceremony took place before her marriage license was issued. We held that the district court was without authority to affirm the BIA for different reasons than the BIA used. We found her initial hearing before Judge Vinikoor deficient because Mayo did not have an attorney or a translator. Testimony was taken by telephone and in person through the latter part of 1991 and parts of 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/013628P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The central issue in this case is whether Geraldine can be considered the widow of deceased wage earner Everett Leach The Honorable Henry L. Because the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. While she was living with Leach. That Leach is Deborah's father and she used the name Smith on the birth certificate because she could not afford to pay the hospital bill. Geraldine alleges that it was her intent to marry Leach and that she and Leach held themselves out as husband and wife to both their family and friends. Geraldine's application was denied initially and on reconsideration by the state agency and the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner found that this event must have occurred in 1963 because in May 1963. The exact date of this event is irrelevant for our purposes. 22 administrative law judge denied Geraldine's claim. Reasoning that Geraldine could not be considered the widow of Leach by virtue of a valid common law marriage because she was unable to enter into such a marriage because of the legal impediment of two prior undissolved marriages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4161.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <hr> HOLMES. G. Cook is married to D. After concluding <hr> that plaintiffs have forfeited any challenge to the constitutionality of Utah's civil prohibition of polygamous marriages. That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-4237.htm">01-4237 -- U.S. V. AGUILAR -- 02/26/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Eva Daisy Aguilar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B409D97772F677488257075004E70F3/$file/0371600.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Did not have a well founded fear of future persecution. The IJ denied Smolniakova's request to review the termination of her conditional resident status on the ground that Smolniakova had not met her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ADA80A6416162B5188256BE30081F419/$file/0110045.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Appellant Santos Orellana Blanco was convicted after a jury trial of marriage fraud1 and making a false statement on an immigration document.2 The theory of the prosecution's case was that he fraudulently married a woman. That he lied in his sworn statement and other papers by stating that he was married to her and lived with her when the marriage was actually a sham. 1 2 8 U.S.C. ง 1325(c). 18 U.S.C. ง 1546(a). 9168 UNITED STATES v. She testified that the marriage was. Was intended as such by both of them from the beginning. Was ultimately frustrated in his attempt to live with her by her leaving him and taking a job elsewhere after cancer surgery made him impotent. At least one of these people was lying. The jury was not too enthused about Boehm. He is married to her. Then his conviction was nearly assured. His credibility was severely undercut on the sham marriage count. The reason they had not was that he refused because the immigration rules turned out to require five years. She didn't have the money to hire a divorce lawyer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-9502.htm">98-9502 -- MATLOCK V. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD -- 12/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Bertha L. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is legally correct. Petitioner claimed she was the widow of decedent. A hearing officer determined that petitioner was not the legal widow of decedent. His conclusion rested on two findings: (1) petitioner's marriage to decedent was void because decedent was already married to Donna Matlock (formerly Waldon) at the time. Petitioner's subsequent marriages and that of decedent were presumed valid. This petition for review followed. <p> Petitioner and decedent were both married on numerous occasions. Some of these marriages were valid. Others were not. Donna Waldon was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce from Robert Waldon in California. Donna Waldon and Robert Waldon were granted a final judgment of divorce in California. <p> August 27. Petitioner and decedent were granted a decree of divorce in Tulsa County. The divorce decree between petitioner and decedent was set aside in Tulsa County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B999B682E8E9ADE788256E2900705837/$file/0070157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congress made clear that individuals forced to undergo abortion or sterilization would be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion. At issue here is the application of another category of asylum seekers covered by this statute: those persecuted for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1715.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That he entered into his first marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and is thus ineligible for an adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident on the basis of his subsequent marriage. Which was approved in October 1994. The INS<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ5MDBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-4900_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) that petitioner could have applied for the extreme hardship waiver originally. Because petitioner sought to present evidence that was previously unavailable. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. 1 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 remand. The petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED. The case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings. Because petitioner's motion to remand was premised on evidence that was previously unavailable. The petition for review is therefore granted. The case is remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. Singh could have removed the conditional limitation on his status by filing a joint application with 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 his spouse during a ninety day period preceding the second anniversary of his lawful entry into the country as a conditional permanent resident. Their first child was born in November 1996 and a second child in March 2000. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0902n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> El Harake moved for a continuance because an I 130 petition filed by his wife on his behalf was pending. The Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for petitioner.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0425p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges. 1 2 In re Fordu COUNSEL No. 97 3936 No. 97 3936 In re Fordu 31 will not disturb a lower court's findings with respect to sanctions unless a clear abuse of discretion is found. There was no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court. There is no evidence. Sanctions under this provision appropriately may be awarded when an attorney advances an argument that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0402n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA rejected Ly's motion to reopen because it concluded that his evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for adjustment of status based upon his marriage to a United States citizen. Ly argues that the Board's refusal to reopen his case was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process rights. As we conclude that the Board's decision was neither an abuse of discretion nor offensive to Ly's due process rights. Who is a native and citizen of Mauritania. Was legally admitted to the United States on January 17. He was served with a Notice to Appear in November 2001. Which alleged that he was removable for violating the terms of his student visa. At his removal hearing in April 2002 where he was represented by counsel. Disputing that Ly's marriage was bona fide because Ly's addresses did not match that of his wife. Ly's first name is recorded as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1437.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. An alien who marries a United States citizen is entitled to petition for permanent residency on a conditional basis. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3092.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Nixon and his then wife Judy Nixon were divorced. His monthly annuity was reduced because of the provision of survivor benefits to his former spouse. Nixon that: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/043726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Muhammad Anwar (Anwar) was charged with and convicted of conspiring to defraud the government by aiding and abetting others to enter into fraudulent marriages between 1993 and 2003. The women understood the proposed marriages were not intended to be legitimate marital relationships. Was born in Pakistan. Her purpose was to allow Bashir to obtain a green card and residency in the United States. Reinier realized her marriage to Bashir was wrong and wanted to end it. The government was allowed to present evidence concerning Anwar's romantic involvement with LeAnne Roof (Roof) and with Ali. Even though Roof and Anwar were involved in a personal relationship both before and after the wedding. Ali testified she was in a romantic relationship with Anwar between 1993 and 1999. The jury found five overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy: (1) Anwar asked Akhtar to marry his nephew. (4) Bashir and Reinier were married on or about February 13. (2) the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three public interest groups whose members include gay and lesbian citizens of Nebraska commenced this action against the Governor and the Attorney General in their official capacities seeking an order declaring that ง 29 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The State renews its contentions that Appellees lack standing to raise these constitutional claims and that the claims are not ripe for review. The State argues that Appellees lack standing their members have suffered no injury in fact because marriage and domestic partnership licenses are not available to same sex couples in Nebraska. Appellees' members can obtain Amicus briefs supporting the State were submitted by certain members of the Nebraska Legislature. Amicus briefs supporting Appellees were submitted by the National Association of Social Workers and its Nebraska Chapter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982411.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Oddo is a native and citizen of Thailand. Oddo told an INS investigator that the marriage was having problems. Oddo told an investigator that the marriage was arranged by his parents. An INS report prepared in March 1990 stated that the marital relationship was questionable because the couple separated. Oddo was at the INS office and confronted with information collected by an INS investigation into his marriage to Ms. Oddo admitted that the marriage was entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit on behalf of Ms. Oddo that she was subject to exclusion proceedings. The petition was approved on December 20. The restaurant was notified that the INS intended to revoke its approval because Ms. Oddo filed a response which included several exhibits to support her claim that the marriage was valid. One of the exhibits was an affidavit prepared by Mr. Oddo in which he retracted his prior concession and stated that the marriage was not entered in order to evade immigration laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D62B1D308ED3783588256E5300783C16/$file/0271677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the proper respondent. We consider whether substantial evidence supports the determination of the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1706_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At which time he was placed in exclusion proceedings. We have substituted the current Attorney General of the United States. The IJ held that Zhang's excludability was established by his admissions as to the other charges. The IJ found that Zhang's claim was based principally on his opposition to the forced family planning regulations in China. The IJ found that Zhang's testimony was credible. The IJ found that: Zhang is opposed to the Chinese birth control policy. Never officially registered the marriage because he was under the age of 22 and she was under the age of 20. Which are the legal ages of marriage for males and females respectively in China. His wife was detained by Birth Control Bureau personnel and was forced to have an abortion because she was underage. His wife was held for 2 days. Zhang was ordered to pay a fine. 2 Zhang later sought relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture as well. He did not challenge the denial of that relief in the opening brief to this court and therefore it is not before us. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1226.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Although we have jurisdiction to review petitioner's due process challenge to the BIA's finding of deportability. Judicial review is barred because the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. I. Some background on the statutory and regulatory scheme for alien citizen marriage is required to understand the pertinent facts of this case. The INS must issue a determination as to whether the facts alleged in the petition are true with respect to the qualifying marriage. The burden at this stage is on the petitioner. If the joint petition is denied. The alien's conditional status is terminated. The alien is deportable under INA 241(a)(1)(D)(i). The burden of proof is placed on the INS to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts in the petition are not true. In other words that the marriage was entered into for the purpose of procuring his entry as an immigrant. Although a visa petition was filed immediately. The petitioner was placed into deportation proceedings and was granted voluntary departure by October 25. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022857P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Donna met Richard Jones shortly after the relationship with Todd ended and was married to him in 1981. Donna and Richard have four children and settled in Sioux Falls. Donna believed she and Richard were no longer close. Donna confided to friends she was dissatisfied with her job and marriage. Who was naked. Having discovered Donna was married. It was against this backdrop that Donna and Todd met again and rekindled their previous relationship.2 On September 23. Todd's father suffered a heart attack and was taken to Sioux Valley hospital. Donna mentioned she was having a birthday the next day. Todd presented her with a birthday card and informed the waiter it was Donna's birthday. She complained she was not getting as much sex from her husband as she wanted. Todd put his hand The only contact between Donna and Todd between 1978 and 1998 was a telephone call Donna made to Todd in 1996 soliciting him to buy vitamins she was selling. 3 2 on her knee. There was conflicting evidence at trial as to who placed the first call. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/86BA900B5A8EAEA98825715600828CC8/$file/0435797.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To whom she was married for only a short time. Complicating the widow's appeal is the fact that although she (along with her citizen spouse) had petitioned to adjust her status to that of lawful permanent resident. GONZALES while she was temporarily working in the United States as an au pair. The Freemans became engaged and thereafter were married near Chicago. Effectively treating her as no longer simply a visitor subject to the 90 day limitation of the VWP.3 While their application was pending. Robert Freeman was tragically killed in a car accident shortly before the Freemans' first wedding anniversary. They are. The VWP is discussed more fully in section II. Infra. 2 Although the Form I 360 is technically a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032497np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Gustavo Valdivia 1 seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032497np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Gustavo Valdivia 1 seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2178.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Service's functions relating to adjudication of immigrant visa petitions were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immi (continued...) 2 No. 03 2178 a decision revoking a previously approved visa petition. On the basis that El Khader's former marriage was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BF6EA0C6BD105AC88256BF7007FC63D/$file/0170055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Canby Judge Politz was originally a member of this panel and heard argument in this case. Judge Fernandez was drawn as a replacement. Judge Fernandez was provided with a tape of the oral argument as well as the briefs and other materials received by the other members of the panel. 9943 9946 VIRK v. Circuit Judge: The issue before us is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0193n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bazzi contends the Board's determination that his qualifying marriage was entered into for the purpose of obtaining entry into the United States is not supported by substantial evidence. Because the Board's determination is supported by reasonable. Because Bazzi's other claims of error are without merit. The petition for review is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Bazzi is a forty two year old native and citizen of Lebanon. Which was granted by the Wayne County Circuit Court in November 1989. The judgment of annulment was entered after an evidentiary hearing and was based upon the circuit judge's finding that Bazzi had committed a fraud on Faraj in order to gain entry into the United States. Before the marriage was annulled. Charging he was deportable on two grounds. The INS alleged Bazzi was deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ง 241(a)(9)(B). As an alien whose conditional permanent resident status was terminated because the Attorney General determined his qualifying marriage was entered into for the purpose of procuring his entry into the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041850np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. Failed to meet his burden of proving that the marriage was entered into in good faith. We will grant the petition. 2 I. As was the Hindu custom. A marriage between them was arranged by their respective families. The Hindu ceremony was conducted and the marriage was consummated. Gaur testified that he was unable to see his wife off at the airport because of a change in flights. Where she was staying with her brother and sister in law. Receive help from his uncle and after he was settled she would come live with him. He testified that he was surprised to receive a divorce decree from his wife. They were divorced in November. In relevant portions provides: I was married in India to Sharad Kumar Gaur . . . Sharad and I stayed together for 2 days and the marriage was consummated. It is my opinion and the opinion of my brothers and my parents that Sharad never intended to fulfill his moral and financial obligations as my husband. Sharma signed the affidavit and her attorney was present. 4 On July 22. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001244.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first is whether a 1992 transfer of land from a husband to his former wife constitutes a transfer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022840u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Amelvis Maria Rivera ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/951062P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nyonzele concedes that he is deportable but contends that he is entitled to discretionary relief in the form of (1) a waiver under 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(c)(4) of the joint petition requirement for seeking permanent resident status. Nyonzele and his wife were required to file a joint petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and appear together for a personal interview approximately two years after the date when he obtained the conditional status. This waiver would have allowed Nyonzele to seek permanent resident status without fulfilling the joint petition requirement if. He was not entitled to a hardship waiver of the joint petition requirement because he failed to demonstrate a good faith qualifying marriage. fear of The BIA also determined that crediting Nyonzele's testimony persecution. DISCUSSION This court has jurisdiction to review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025004.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: El Sayed Hassan Rashwan was convicted of marriage fraud. Rashwan was properly prosecuted and convicted on all counts. The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed. Rashwan was required to complete a DL51 residency certification form. Walker was about to be evicted and was having trouble keeping a job. Walker testified that she knew that she and Rashwan were entering into the marriage with no intent to consummate it and with the sole purpose of facilitating Rashwan's obtaining a green card. Walker and Rashwan were married in a double wedding ceremony with another couple. Obeidat was also a foreign national seeking to obtain permanent residency in the United States. There were no family members in attendance at the wedding. Later admitted that the sole purpose of these pictures was to impress the INS. The bride and groom did not consummate the marriage and did not live together after they were married. At no point in time did Rashwan inform the INS or his attorney that he and Walker were not co habitating. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0399p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that Judge Clunk is entitled to judicial immunity. BACKGROUND Sean Brookings was born female. Counsel for the decedent's surviving son in a will contest action. Brookings was later arrested and charged with committing a misdemeanor in the first degree through a continuing course of conduct. Claiming that the judge had violated his civil rights by pressuring the prosecutor's office to have him arrested and that Judge Clunk acted outside his jurisdiction in doing so. Concluding that Judge Clunk's actions were non judicial and that he was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The court's jurisdiction to review this interlocutory appeal is based on the principle that a district court's denial of a claim of immunity. Is immediately appealable. The Supreme Court has stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0069n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sami seeks review of the BIA's determination that he failed to demonstrate that his marriage to Tawfik was in good faith and that he was therefore ineligible for a waiver. The marriage was arranged by Sami's uncle. Whose son (Sami's cousin) was planning to be married to Tawfik's sister. Where the marriage was consummated. Sami was accorded lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis based upon his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Tawfik informed Sami that she was pregnant with his child. The marriage was terminated by entry of a judgment of divorce. Was entered into in good faith. The INS thereafter issued a show cause order charging that Sami was deportable on two grounds: (1) that he was an alien whose conditional resident status was terminated. (2) that he was an alien who engaged in marriage fraud.2 Evidentiary hearings were held before an IJ on July 29. The IJ found that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983455.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The ultimate question in this case is whether a state divorce court can defease the United States of its interest in property forfeited under the criminal forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. ง 982 (1994) and 21 U.S.C. ง 853 (1994). 1 and two counts of Honorable Will L. Or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed. Knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10. 000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity. The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under title 18. Or imprisonment for not more than ten years or both. (2) The court may impose an alternate fine to that imposable under paragraph (1) of not more than twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction. .... (d) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are (1) that the offense under this section takes place in the United States.... .... (f) As used in this section (1) the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042845np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 ) This case was argued before Judges Smith. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.ง 46(d). 1 * Stanley J. We have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to reopen as it is a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a). We will deny the petition. A marriage interview with an officer from the Bureau of Immigration and Citizenship Enforcement was conducted on March 26. The record is clear that Kourouma and his purported wife made a number of false statements during their marriage interview. After Norris was confronted with the inconsistencies between their statements. She signed a form indicating that she was voluntarily withdrawing her I 130 petition seeking an adjustment of status and that she understood </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962257.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Petitioner Okechukwu Onyeme is a 38 year old male native and citizen of Nigeria. Onyeme obtained a visitor's visa to the United States by fraudulently representing that he was married to a Nigerian woman and had a child. Faced with the fact that he had gained entry into the United States by representing that he was married to a Nigerian citizen. Onyeme's application for permanent residence was approved. The INS discovered that the document was fraudulent and consequently notified Onyeme that it intended to rescind his permanent resident status pursuant to ง 246(a) of the INA. [Onyeme] testified before an officer of [the INS] stating that [his] first marriage was legally terminated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-3455.man.html">UNITED STATES V. KENNEDY (1/28/2000, NO. 98-3455)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The ultimate question in this case is whether a state divorce court can defease the United States of its interest in property forfeited under the criminal forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. ง 982 (1994) and 21 U.S.C. ง 853 (1994). Was forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ง 982 because it was acquired with proceeds of criminal activity.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3186_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zhu indicated in his I 589 form that his asylum request was based on political opinion. The facts are undisputed. He admitted to school officials that he was responsible for her pregnancy. Zhu also was hit on the head with a brick. We will not grant the petition for review unless the petitioner demonstrates that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-3455.man.html">UNITED STATES V. KENNEDY (1/28/2000, NO. 98-3455)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The ultimate question in this case is whether a state divorce court can defease the United States of its interest in property forfeited under the criminal forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. ง 982 (1994) and 21 U.S.C. ง 853 (1994). Was forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ง 982 because it was acquired with proceeds of criminal activity.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1897.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court also sustained in part Mungo's objection to Taylor's proof of claim by reducing the amount of the claim to a figure that Mungo argued was permissible. Mungo later sought to have the claim judgment reconsidered. Arguing that she had not actually agreed to that figure but rather that it was the only permissible amount that could be awarded. The district court's decision is appended below. The bankruptcy court's order as amended is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Taylor was a disputed creditor by virtue of her representation of Mungo in state court divorce proceedings. That motion was denied. Whether the bankruptcy court erred by failing to award Mungo costs where she was the prevailing party at trial. These issues are as follows: 1. Whether the bankruptcy court's finding that Taylor failed to give thorough advice concerning the divorce settlement was clearly erroneous. Whether the bankruptcy court's finding that Taylor and her former spouse were undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown in August 1997 was clearly erroneous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0020p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8B53EDC826E8CC6A8825726800054A4B/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. It was not until the Petition for Rehearing that Jawara. First addressed whether the expert's reliance on the country report is testimonial under Crawford v. This is a significant question given the traditional reliance on State Department country reports in immigration proceedings. Because the comparative country conditions were not central to the charges here and the admission of this testimony was harmless. The same is true with respect to 808 UNITED STATES v. As I have stated. The evidence on the document fraud charge is comparatively weak. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE24B24353BD1131882571EA0055BE58/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-14867.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SINGLETON (8/8/2001, NO. 99-14867)<BR></A><BR> District Judge.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gutkoski were on brief for appellants. Johnston were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from a jury verdict of no liability in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff appellant is Richard K. Defendants appellees are Benjamin Mahlab. We address only one of the three issues raised by appellant because it is dispositive. Excerpts from the letters were allowed in evidence. Were the parents of two children: Brian. Klonoski was born and raised in Connecticut. Klonoski was employed by Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital as a cardiologist. She was sent home in the afternoon. Klonoski's death she was delivered of a healthy baby girl. Klonoski was in San Diego at a medical meeting of cardiologists on Saturday. He was notified late Saturday of his wife's admission to the hospital. His wife was comatose and did not recognize him. PRETRIAL DISCOVERY As is usual in a well prepared medical malpractice case. As is also usual. The address to which her letters (the evidence in dispute) were sent. To the extent defendants can more persuasively support their assertion that such a list (or the names of particular people which would otherwise appear on such a list) is protected by the work product doctrine (i.e. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-14867.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SINGLETON (8/8/2001, NO. 99-14867)<BR></A><BR> District Judge.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1822.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C4B287CF80E85E5288257348005755CD/$file/0576004.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> California courts have recognized that an employee spouse like John might attempt to defeat a nonemployee spouse's community interest in a pension by continuing to work. Julie was not required to await John's actual retirement and instead demanded monthly payments in lieu of her community pension interest pursuant to In re Marriage of Gillmore. We must decide whether John was entitled to reduce his taxable income by the amount paid over to Julie in 2000.1 We conclude that he was not and reverse the Tax Court's contrary holding. Were divorced on August 19. John was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/054433P.pdf">N:\DOCS\MELISSA\05-4433 EBRAHIM V. GONZALES OPN FINAL 12.6.WPD<BR></A><BR> Ebrahim married a United States citizen and his nonimmigrant status was subsequently adjusted to that of a conditional permanent resident. Ebrahim later The INS was abolished and its functions assumed by the Department of Homeland Security on March 1. Ebrahim claimed that he entered the marriage in good faith and that he would suffer extreme hardship if he were removed from the United States. I. Background Ebrahim was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure on August 20. His nonimmigrant status was adjusted to that of a conditional permanent resident on September 20. Noting that his petition was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02FE5C48C1EC8D61882570F2007BE759/$file/0410590.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The basis for this conviction was Alferahin's failure to disclose. I. Osama Musa Alferahin was born in Kuwait as a citizen of Jordan. Was not officially recorded in the Spanish civil registry until February 16. Alferahin thus married his second wife and applied for permanent residence in the United States after the religious ceremony in Spain in which he claims to have divorced his first wife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1962.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief for cross appellant. It ruled that because the Advest IRA was in Cox's name when Cox petitioned for bankruptcy. Hence was not subject to the later judgment of the divorce court. We reverse the court's decision as to the Advest IRA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. </P> <UL> <LI><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></LI> </UL> <P> Laurie Davis and Thomas Cox were married on August 17. They have two minor children. Davis was a homemaker and. Cox was a successful commercial attorney. The court was required by Maine law to issue. The preliminary injunction was meant to keep intact. Is equitably divided by the court between the divorcing pair irrespective of in whose name it was held. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034018.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GARDNER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was convicted of various charges. SSI payments are available to aged. If the SSI applicant is married and living with a spouse who is not eligible for SSI benefits. The income of the spouse is considered when determining whether the applicant is eligible for SSI benefits. The otherwise eligible spouse is not entitled to any benefits. This time noting that she was married to (but had for years been estranged from) Bobby Gardner. The 1993 application informed Gardner that she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BCE01CC525BC20088256FA8007A434B/$file/0370087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fisher The opinion filed at 382 F.3d 993 is amended in full as follows: 1889 ZHENG v. To abort their first child because they had not reached the legal age for marriage and were not authorized to have a child. The Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE950AA66ABFC88988256D66008209CD/$file/0271609.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His claims are supported by his testimony concerning a series of arrests and beatings by police in India attributed to his membership in a dissident political organization. I. BACKGROUND Malhi is a 36 year old native and citizen of India. His application for asylum filed shortly after his arrival was denied. He was placed in deportation proceedings.1 Malhi testified that he suffered from past persecution when he was in India and that he has a fear of future persecution based upon three alleged incidents. In each of which he claimed that he was arrested and beaten by police on account of his membership in the All India Sikh Student Federation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. The SJC later held that it was an insufficient remedy under the Massachusetts Constitution merely to afford same sex partners the same benefits as married couples without also recognizing their marriage. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0079p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is another difficult immigration case in which we must resist the temptation to impose our own sense of justice as if this were a de novo review. Petitioner is a native citizen of Albania and was admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa in August 2001. Petitioner overstayed her visa and was served with a notice to appear in September 2002. The I 485 should have been filed with the BIA as part of a motion to reopen because she was in immigration proceedings. The I 485 was denied. Attached to her motion were the DHS notification regarding her May 5th interview with DHS. DHS offered evidence that at least one of the statements made by Petitioner in her sworn affidavit was untrue: her I 130 had in fact not been approved at the time she swore out and filed her affidavit. Arguing her affidavit and attached I 485 were sufficient to entitle her to relief and that DHS had now found that her marriage was valid by approving the I130. Stating that the approval notice of the I 130 was new evidence which could not be considered in a motion to reconsider and that even if Appellant's motion were styled a motion to reopen with new evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031013p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004) Tavarez's name is spelled differently throughout the record and the briefs. He is referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061138P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment. Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Had a son who was born in 1998. The indictment alleged that the application contained two false statements: (1) that Katkhordeh was unmarried. He argues the government failed to prove either that he was married at the 2 time he applied for a visa. Or that his statement that he had no children was knowingly and materially false. When we review a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Affirm unless no reasonable juror could have convicted the defendant. Katkhordeh qualified for a special preference visa only if he was unmarried when he entered the United States. 8 U.S.C. ง 1153(a)(2)(B). To convict Katkhordeh of falsely representing that he was unmarried. The government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Katkhordeh was indeed married prior to his entry into the United States on June 20. Katkhordeh listed Fatemeh Lotfi Afshar as his spouse and stated that they were married on April 8. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BB82492DC74B73188256F030057964D/$file/0370087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To abort their first child because they had not reached the legal age for marriage and were not authorized to have a child. The Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded Moussa was an alien subject to removal and vacated the IJ's order. Moussa was born in Addis Ababa. His parents divorced when Moussa was five. When Moussa was twelve. While Moussa was in his legal custody. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that a child born outside the United States acquired citizenship upon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1898p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that illegally secured evidence was erroneously admitted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review of the factualfindings is for clear error. Our review of the district court's application of a legal standard is plenary. I The relevant facts are undisputed. The three women were described with minimal characteristics as follows: one had red hair. Another was short and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyOTktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3299-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At which he was found guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. งง 371. 541 U.S. 36 The jury was unable to reach a verdict on substantive charges of bank robbery. (2) the receipt into evidence of items seized during a warrantless search of the apartment where Snype was arrested violated the Fourth Amendment. (a) was not supported by the record evidence. (b) violated his Sixth Amendment right to have findings of fact resulting in a higher maximum sentence made by a jury rather than the trial court. (c) was the result of an unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. We conclude that the alleged errors are without merit or. B. The Robbers' Shootout with the Police While the robbery was in effect. Which was in fact responding to a radio alert about the crime. Because Partlow and Snype were masked. No teller or bank customer was able to identify them as the robbers. Shots were fired from that vehicle at the officers. The four confederates drove to Telephone records showed that all five conspirators were in constant contact with one another in the hours during the July 6. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3200203F0C7FC3AF88256FCB007A8815/$file/0273556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES 3469 1632.1 We conclude that Minasyan is a derivative citizen of the United States pursuant to that provision. Is thus not subject to removal as a felon convicted of an aggravated offense. First entered the United States with his family when he was eight. He obtained lawful permanent resident status when he was ten. When he was fourteen. Minasyan was arrested on charges of first degree burglary and Under former INA ง 321(a). Or (2) The naturalization of the surviving parent if one of the parents is deceased. Or (3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation. If (4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years. (5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent last naturalized under clause (1) of this subsection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-9561.htm">03-9561 -- TAGOE V. ASHCROFT -- 08/27/2004<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Edward Armah Tagoe petitions for review of the decision of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge (IJ)'s order revoking his previously approved application for asylum and denying his requests for withholding of deportation and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-9555.html">REZAI V. INS<BR></A><BR> Rezai also contends that the BIA should have remanded his case for reopening of the deportation proceeding. His father was a high ranking official in the Shah's government. Rezai claims that he was very involved in the Council of Iranian Royalists during his years in Germany. Nor does it list the Council of Iranian Royalists as a group of which he was a member. Rezai was granted conditional permanent resident status on the basis of his marriage to a United States citizen. A waiver is available where deportation would result in extreme hardship or where the alien can prove that he married in good faith even though the marriage was subsequently terminated. We have noted that a grant of asylum requires two steps. The alien must establish that he is a refugee by proving either past persecution or a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1288.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Les was sworn in as United States Attorney General on February 3. We have therefore substituted Attorney General Gonzá. The proposed adjustment was based on the combined force of (i) the approval of a so called I 140 visa application sponsored by his employer. The petitioner and Olujoke were interviewed by an asylum officer in May of 1999. The notice to appear was made returnable to the immigration court in Boston.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0190n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives and citizens of Morocco. They were neighbors and began spending time together alone and in secret in 1990. Benayad and Taghzout were able to keep in touch by way of letters because Taghzout was the one who went to the post office to pick up the mail. Taghzout was able to obtain a visa and purchase a plane ticket to the United States. It was refused. Benayad and Taghzout were married in a mosque in Ann Arbor. Was born in August 2002.1 Taghzout's uncle was furious when he learned of the marriage. Taghzout had ignored the Muslim rules followed in Morocco by marrying on her own without someone present who is responsible for her to give her away in marriage. The marriage will not be recognized by 1 A second daughter was born in February 2005. Taghzout's uncle will allegedly be able to separate the family and force Taghzout to marry another man. Benayad believes that his family would not be safe anywhere in Morocco because Morocco is a small country and the uncle could find them. Taghzout's application for asylum was dated September 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/34D349C592E8652088256BC2004B22A5/$file/0016494.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Filed an amended complaint in federal court in which he alleged: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034754p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge Adnan Muhanna ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE4NzQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1874-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner has established that the persecution she fears is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE4NzQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1874-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner has established that the persecution she fears is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1258.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. This is the first case to address this argument involving the interpretation of 8 C.F.R. ง 1003.25. We hold that there was no error in the admission of the telephone testimony of the witness and that Akinwande's other arguments fail. Who is an American citizen. Akinwande himself were among the witnesses who testified during the hearings. Which were affirmed without opinion by the BIA. That Akinwande was not eligible for adjustment of status.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615742op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was detained at the airport. He said that he came because America was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQxMDczX3NvLnBkZg==/03-41073_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615742.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was detained at the airport. He said that he came because America was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE4NzQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1874-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner has established that the persecution she fears is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051524P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cao is married to a Chinese national and has two children. The facts outlined in this section are as described by Cao. He stated that his marriage was not registered until later because he was not legally permitted to marry his wife in 1987. Cao stated that a woman must be twenty two years old before she could be legally married and she was only sixteen years old at the time of the customary wedding. His first child was born in Changle City. After the child was born. The Village Women=s Committee came to his house to have an intrauterine device (AIUD@) inserted into his wife. The insertion was initially delayed because his wife was experiencing heavy bleeding. The Women=s Committee returned two months later and the IUD was inserted. Despite Cao=s statement that he could not legally marry his wife until she was twenty two. He was able to register his marriage while she was still twenty one years old. At the time Cao brought his wife to have their marriage registered. She was five months pregnant. The pregnancy was in clear violation of China=s family planning policies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE4NzQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1874-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner has established that the persecution she fears is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1135.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When he was convicted of murder. His projected parole date is in December 2004. Stolka was placed on a restricted list of indefinite duration. The request was denied because Stolka was not then allowed to visit Martin. So that she was not entitled to a hearing. Although the court recognized that prisoners have a fundamental right to marry. Violating a valid prison rule is a good reason to block marriage. Shortly after this opinion was released. Martin and Stolka soon saw one another again and have since been married. Because the marriage has occurred and visitation is ongoing. Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is moot. Martin and Stolka do not have children. So their legitimation is not at issue. Both plaintiffs are alive. They do not contend that marriage would have reduced their taxes or increased their receipts from third parties. Is unaffected by this statute and may have a claim to at least some compensation. It is unnecessary to catalog the possibilities. May have on Martin's claim. Defendants have asserted qualified immunity as a basis for affirmance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09668C1B44425BF788256FE7007E373B/$file/0371896.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: We must decide the applicability of the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to the Board of Immigration Appeals' ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/053920P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is another chapter in the thirty year history of immigration proceedings involving Edy Uzor Ikenokwalu White ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0682n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because he is gay. He would be imprisoned or possibly executed if he were forced to return to Jordan. The immigration judge (IJ) denied Safadi's application on the ground that Safadi did not prove that he was in fact gay. Gonzales Safadi's asylum application was inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing. Safadi stated that he was living with Easterly in a legitimate marriage and presented documentation to that effect. He has known that he was gay since he was 13 years old. The IJ determined that Safadi was not credible because he had. Because his asylum application was inconsistent with his 2 No. 03 4592 Safadi v. The IJ expressed doubt as to whether Safadi was in fact gay. Concluding that his application was apparently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E552744ED52FD08C88256E5A00707C47/$file/9971591.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA found that Valderrama's hearing testimony was not credible and concluded that she had not carried her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/042473P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The marriage was dissolved before she gained nonconditional 1 Alberto R. Is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). permanent resident status. The petition should have included her husband's signature. Ignatova and her daughter were nevertheless granted conditional permanent resident status in May 1996. Ignatova sought removal of the conditional status by filing what should have been a joint I 751 petition in March 1998. A joint interview for Ignatova and Wells was scheduled for September 1998. Ignatova requested that the interview be postponed because her marriage was in the process of being terminated. The marriage was dissolved after Ignatova and Wells filed for divorce in January 1999. It also informed her that its Fraudulent Document Laboratory suspected that Wells' signature on the first I 751 The INS was abolished and its functions assumed by the Department of Homeland Security on March 1. Her conditional resident status was terminated and her petition denied after the INS found that she had not entered her marriage in good faith. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUyNjUtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5265-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the IJ's factual findings regarding petitioner's marital status are supported by substantial evidence. We are required under Shi Liang Lin v. 2006) The petition for review is GRANTED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2006 as to when a responsive opinion by the BIA in this case will be issued. Pan claimed that he had been persecuted for violating the Chinese family planning policy and that he faces a well founded fear of future persecution if he is returned to China. (2) because Pan was not married to his girlfriend. Or beaten </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412566.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ABB7B70D572D24588256AA7005B50B4/$file/9971591.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA found that Valderrama's hearing testimony was not credible and concluded that she had not carried her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-9508.htm">01-9508 -- MCELWEE V. IMMIGATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 10/02/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Leonisita Quiosay McElwee petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review the Board's decision denying a motion to reopen. <u>Aguilera v. While they were both working in Saudi Arabia. They were married in June 1984 in Thailand. McElwee had an undissolved marriage in the Philippines and was not free to marry John McElwee. McElwee an order to show cause why she should not be deported because her immigrant visa was invalid. There was no evidence that the marriage was ever dissolved. <p> Mrs. Claimed that she was never married in the Philippines and her children were not borne of a marriage. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 129 34. She stated that one of her natural children is probably the result of being raped by Arsenio Llamera. That her other two living children were adopted. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at . She said that her fourth child was the product of artificial insemination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053896p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(a) (1993).1 She was admitted to the United States with that status on March 24. Was not entered into for the purpose of gaining an alien's entry as an immigrant. 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(c)(1)(A). Is 90 days before the second anniversary of gaining status. Her conditional permanent resident status was terminated effective March 25. Cabrera was issued a termination notice by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQzMDJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4302_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED. Office of Immigration 1 The Clerk is requested to modify the official caption to reflect the correct order of Li's 1 name. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Litigation. Li asserts that the IJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and alleges several specific errors. Li's in court testimony is consistent with a statement that he submitted in 1997 to There is also a vestigial Convention Against Torture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983843P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/0889a7e44c934bba88256e5a0070797d/$FILE/0015150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Short appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-6034.htm">98-6034 -- BROUGHAM V. APFEL -- 12/24/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Genia M. She was not entitled to benefits as Mr. . McGuffin's widow and her children were not entitled to benefits as his stepchildren. May be offered if preferred proof is not available. <u>See</u> 20 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/016044P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota. which were awarded to him in a marriage dissolution decree. Were married in 1986. The contributions to the individual IRA accounts were made from the income of the Andersons' joint farming operation. The Andersons were divorced. The value of this award was $25. 2001 (which was nine days after the marriage dissolution decree was entered in the state court). The funds were still included in Kelly Anderson's IRA account. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the objection and disallowed the portion of the claimed exemption that was awarded to the Debtor as part of the divorce. The Debtor appeals. 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW Because the parties do not dispute factual issues in this case and the sole issue before us is whether the Bankruptcy Court correctly interpreted and applied the Minnesota exemption statute and the case law precedent to the undisputed facts. Our review is de novo. The Debtor seeks to have his appeal transferred from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to the District Court for the District of Minnesota. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042407np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. She was authorized to remain in the country for six months but stayed for nearly three years. Li appeared with a different attorney and was granted another continuance of two weeks in order to submit evidence in support of her application. Li was accompanied by an interpreter brought by her attorney. An official court interpreter was not present. Contending she never requested voluntary departure a contention predicated upon her argument that she was not provided an interpreter by the court at the February 20 hearing. While the appeal was pending. Li submitted affidavits and other evidence alleging the marriage was entered into in good faith. A strong likelihood that her marriage was bona fide and that her application on remand would be successful. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. Our review of a due process claim arising from removal proceedings is plenary. Due Process Li contends her right to due process was violated because the court did not provide an interpreter at her removal hearing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054995np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/024143P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whom she married while removal proceedings were pending. Patel filed an application for political asylum while the visa petition was pending. She was ordered removed from the United States in March 2000. The case might have come to an auspicious ending then had Patel's father himself not been ordered removed from the United States in the interim. Its functions were fully transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security. This opinion will refer to the agency as the INS. 2 1 visa petition on her behalf. The race was on again. Patel's timing was again felicitous. The present petition to this court followed.2 The parties agree that the question presented is While this petition was pending. 382 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating a motion to reopen and a motion to remand are functional equivalents under BIA procedure). 3 2 whether the approved visa petition constitutes clear and convincing evidence Ms. Patel's marriage was bona fide. Do not defer to legal interpretations that are arbitrary. Is partially right. 4 generally bars the Attorney General from adjusting the status of an alien seeking an immigrant visa on the basis of a marriage entered into while removal proceedings were pending against the alien. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/8947fd92d7571ccf8825699800606679/$FILE/0015150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Short appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043254p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Carrol Morgan is subject to an Order of Removal pursuant to section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Petitioner contends that she is not removable because she obtained derivative United States citizenship upon her mother's naturalization while her parents allegedly were separated. Because petitioner cannot establish that her parents were legally separated at the time her mother was naturalized. We will deny the petition for review. While the child is under the age of eighteen. The parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child's parents are legally separated. 8 U.S.C. ง 1432(a)(3). Petitioner was born in Jamaica in 1968. When petitioner was age sixteen. Her mother was naturalized. Neither petitioner nor her father have ever been naturalized. Petitioner was charged with being an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and therefore subject to removal. Because she was born out of wedlock. She was eligible for derivative citizenship under 8 U.S.C. ง 1432 upon her mother's naturalization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTYxMjJfc28ucGRm/05-6122_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A97 163 186 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 petition for review is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED in part. The BIA's decision is VACATED in part. The case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this order. The IJ was correct in noting that the certificate did not mention the birth control office and only bore a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-9429.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MADUNO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Obtain naturalization and citizenship for himself to which he was not entitled. Maduno and Okeke were married in April 1984. This home was student housing at the University of Mississippi. Where Maduno was a student. She testified at Maduno's trial that she had no intentions of reconciling her marriage with him and believed that the marriage was no longer continuing. There was no divorce decree entered. The petition was rejected because she was unable to locate Maduno after he left the University of Mississippi. His roommates at Parktown North were three males named Chukwndi Maduno. Maduno indicated that he was married. Her first contact with him was a telephone conversation in 1989. This application was based upon his marriage to Okeke. Maduno indicated that he was married to Okeke and they resided at 1418 North Cliff Valley Way in Atlanta. The examiner would question applicants if different addresses were shown for the spouses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-2174.htm">96-2174 -- U.S. V. BAHE -- 11/13/1997<BR></A><BR> Was indicted on a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033449np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence. We will dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. It is not necessary to recite the facts of this case in detail. It is sufficient to note that Mr. Who was admitted to the United States on November 29. 1989 and whose status was adjusted to that of a conditional permanent resident on April 22. Had his Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence denied by the INS and his conditional residency was terminated. Tounkara was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1227(a)(1)(D)(I). Tounkara was subject to removal as charged and that. Tounkara failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his marriage was bona fide and that he was eligible for a 2 waiver pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(c)(4)(B). Suggested that the marriage was entered into </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/93-9429.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MADUNO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Obtain naturalization and citizenship for himself to which he was not entitled. Maduno and Okeke were married in April 1984. This home was student housing at the University of Mississippi. Where Maduno was a student. She testified at Maduno's trial that she had no intentions of reconciling her marriage with him and believed that the marriage was no longer continuing. There was no divorce decree entered. The petition was rejected because she was unable to locate Maduno after he left the University of Mississippi. His roommates at Parktown North were three males named Chukwndi Maduno. Maduno indicated that he was married. Her first contact with him was a telephone conversation in 1989. This application was based upon his marriage to Okeke. Maduno indicated that he was married to Okeke and they resided at 1418 North Cliff Valley Way in Atlanta. The examiner would question applicants if different addresses were shown for the spouses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052481np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition. Gao was charged with inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981188.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although she was Kirby's surviving spouse for the purpose of the Plans. She waived her rights to benefits under the Plans when she instituted a family court action seeking an equitable division of marital property and did not appeal from the ruling therein.2 We agree that Graef is a surviving spouse for the purpose of 1 For convenience. Because no issue has been raised regarding Albemarle's determination that Graef's claim for benefits under the Retirement Plan was materially similar to her claim for benefits under the Savings Plan. I. Kirby and Graef were married on May 10. Graef claimed that the 1987 divorce decree was null and void. Included among the assets considered as marital property was Kirby's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043911P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Suvorov's request under section 216(c)(4)(B) would have waived the requirement that he and Jeana Lindell file a joint petition to remove the conditional basis of his permanent residence status. Is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 1 denied Suvorov's request. Deportability is not at issue in this case. All parties concede that Suvorov is deportable. The issue is whether Suvorov qualifies for relief from removal. Specifically whether there is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7965CB4A2019F3388256FA8004E0934/$file/0370903.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that the marriage was fraudulent. The petitions were never consolidated. Ngongo and Chambers offered testimony to rebut the contention that their marriage was fraudulent. Then allowed Chambers to testify because the credibility of both spouses was at issue. The first petition was denied. ASHCROFT 1825 finding that the INS proved that the marriage was fraudulent. Both decisions were separately appealed. The BIA did not have the appeal regarding the second petition before it anymore. See 8 C.F.R. งง 3.1(a)(7) and (e)(4) (2003).2 Single member affirmance is permitted if the issue is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0185p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jaber argued that his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER We will deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. I. Daud was born in Pakistan on March 20. Daud was served with a Notice to Appear by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	OPINION/ORDER We will deny Bhawra's petition because substantial evidence in the record supports the Immigration Judge's conclusions that Bhawra was not credible or entitled to relief from removal. I. BACKGROUND Bhawra is a Punjabi Sikh and professional musician. He was married with three children. While the appeal was pending. Bhawra's timely petitions were consolidated and transferred to this Court. We have appellate jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. We review the 3 judge's decision as if it were the decision of the Board. Board determinations are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Which is an
	OPINION/ORDER To New York City and concluding that he had willfully misrepresented a material fact in his Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence and that Monter was therefore removable. We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. Several years after he was married and after he had been granted conditional permanent residency status. 1 which was approved without an interview. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was reconstituted as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND Melissa Green Tenorio and Juan Tenorio Ruiz met when Melissa was an exchange student in Mexico. Melissa discovered she was pregnant. Juan visited when the baby was born and returned to Minnesota when he graduated from high school. The marriage was not a happy one. The move was largely financed by Juan's father. Juan and his father told Melissa's mother that it was for a trial period and that if it did not work out. Melissa testified that her understanding of the move was that they would not even live in the same town as her in laws. Juan was also having difficulty with his father and brother in the family business. Juan was physically and verbally abusive. She called Juan and said she was not returning. Holding that Juan failed to prove that the habitual residence of the children was Mexico. That within six months things were not working out. That even Juan was having second thoughts about staying. That Melissa's return to Mexico in 2002 was only an effort to save the 4 marriage. Rather that the family was in limbo during that time.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Yve Sumaya Amparo de Ocasio's petition for permanent resident status and granted her request for voluntary departure after concluding that her marriage to Willy Ocasio was a sham. The petitioner contests the BIA's decision because Willy Ocasio's testimony was submitted by affidavit. She therefore did not have the opportunity to cross examine him. The petitioner was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis.
	OPINION/ORDER I. Because the scope of this appeal is limited. Are not germane to our discussion. They are set forth at some length in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Petitioner was represented by retained counsel Jeff Crow and Clark Washington. Washington's background was primarily in civil practice. 2) the murder was especially heinous. Who was on work release from prison at the time of the murder. A minister who had counseled Johnson and his family while he was in jail. The minister testified that Johnson had told him that
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: A month before they were married. Two years after Odom and Newton were married. I Toni Odom and Charles Newton met in 1983 while both were working as linemen and line splicers for BellSouth Corporation. Each was a participant in BellSouth's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (
	99-8054 -- HERMAN V. DOVALA -- 02/25/2000 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appellant John Herman appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is automatically substituted for former Secretary Tom Ridge. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers is automatically substituted for former Assistant Secretary Michael J. We also hold that the IJ erred in denying Alrefae's motion to reopen because he failed to explain why Alrefae was not prima facie eligible to remove the conditional basis of his permanent resident status. He was ordered removed in absentia after he and his wife failed to file a timely joint petition to remove the conditional basis of his permanent resident status and he subsequently failed to appear for his removal hearing. We also hold that the IJ erred in denying Alrefae's motion to reopen because he failed to explain why Alrefae was not prima facie eligible for removal of the conditional basis of his residency status. BACKGROUND Aliens who attain permanent resident status by marriage to a citizen are initially granted that status on a conditional basis for two years. 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(a)(1).
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner Kwabena Essuman is a native and citizen of Ghana who overstayed his non immigrant visitor visa. He was ordered removed from the United States in July 2003. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. That petition is No. 05 9573. While the motion to reopen was pending before the BIA. That petition was transferred to this court under the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005. Our No. 05 9587 was opened. The two cases were consolidated for appeal. He learned that his father in Ghana was dying. Petitioner maintains that he was never advised of the submission of the fraudulent documents or of the INS's denial of the 1996 petition. Ever sought to procure . . . [an] immigration benefit
	OPINION/ORDER 2001 oral decision of an immigration judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Finding that petitioner was not credible and that. It was unlikely that he would be persecuted if he returned to that country. The IJ found that petitioner had lied to the Court and he was ordered to be deported. The BIA also stated that petitioner had not pursued an adjustment of status during this deportation hearing because he was living apart from his wife. This motion was denied by the BIA on February 3. The applicant presents clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that the marriage is 2 bona fide.
	OPINION/ORDER Harold Arbeitman was employed by two Dodge dealerships. His first wife from whom he was divorced. Who was named as beneficiary in the Royal Parkway plan. Harold Arbeitman died in August 1992. and profit sharing plans.2 Harold and Patricia were married in October 1966. children. Tried the case by consent of the parties. 2 1 The terms of the Royal Parkway and Royal Gate plans are the 2 same. in December 1983. against his estate. The validity of which was The agreement listed the separate property of Donna and Harold. Neither plan was listed level of support for Patricia and his children. The Trusts brought this interpleader action to have the court determine who was entitled to receive Harold's benefits under the pension plans. The benefits from the Royal Parkway plan were The approximately $83. The magistrate judge rejected Patricia's contention that the plan was intended to take the place of the life insurance policy required by the separation agreement. ERISA defines the term qualified preretirement survivor annuity as
	OPINION/ORDER He contends that Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question we consider in this asylum case is the nature of evidence required to support an Immigration Judge's (
	OPINION/ORDER The INS ceased to exist and its principal\ functions were transferred to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs\ Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security.
	OPINION/ORDER We will deny his petition. A brief review of the facts will suffice. Douglas is a native and citizen of Jamaica. Douglas was granted conditional lawful permanent resident status. Both lied and told the INS official that they were living together. Holding that the government had clearly established that Douglas's marriage was entered into for immigration purposes. As is provided for under the BIA's streamlining regulations. 8 C.F.R. ง 1003.1(a)(7) (2004). This issue is disposed of by this Court's recent opinion in Dia v. Must affirm the IJ's findings if they are supported by
	OPINION/ORDER Esther Moshud) ญ and we will refer to her as Mavis Donkor. Her real name ญ was born on September 21. Donkor was apprehended by agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	OPINION/ORDER Who is an American citizen. The government argues that these aspects of the BIA's decision are discretionary and that IIRIRA. We also hold that ง 1252(a)(2)(B) does not affect our jurisdiction to review BIA decisions that are contrary to law. They began living apart but have no plans to divorce. When his visa was refused. Alleging that he was a removable alien.1 At a hearing on November 5. Most of its functions were transferred to the Bureau of Border Security and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. We will refer to the relevant government agency as the INS. 1 MEDINA MORALES v. ASHCROFT on the basis of his relationship to his step father is deserving of greater discretionary consideration than holding him to the bargain he entered into with the United States when he asked for and accepted voluntary departure under section 240B(a) of the Act. The Immigration Judge's finding that the respondent failed to establish a particularly strong relationship between the adult respondent and his United States citizen step father is also relevant to the exercise of discretion as the quality of the relationship impacts upon the equities the respondent has established in support of reopening.
	OPINION/ORDER We will grant Yang's petition for review. We will limit our discussion of the background facts. Was subsequently placed in removal proceedings by the then named Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	LEWIS V. BARNHART (3/19/2002, NO. 01-10851) The Act affords benefits to the widow of a fully insured individual if the widow is not remarried. Is between 50 and 60 years of age. Is disabled. Claiming she was disabled as of October . The Social Security Administration denied the claim because Appellant was
	OPINION/ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Mohammad Moniruzzaman was convicted after a jury trial of entering a false marriage for purposes of evading United States immigration laws. Are citizens of Bangladesh. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. 2007). he was Islam's brother. Among the documents Revell signed were papers requesting a change to Moniruzzaman's immigration status and a lease for a University of Kansas student housing apartment. Glor contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (
	OPINION/ORDER Must be met when realty is transferred from a third party to spouses as joint tenants. That the property in issue is therefore held in joint tenancy rather than as community property. Eugene and Ann Marie used their savings as well as money from a personal injury award for the down payment.1 The deed stated that the Summerses were acquiring the property as joint tenants. The trustee in Ann Marie's bankThe parties agree that the funds used to purchase the property were community assets. 1 IN RE: SUMMERS 8275 ruptcy case. Contended that the subject property was a community asset and. The bankruptcy court ruled that the realty was held in joint tenancy.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This appeal presents three questions: (1) whether it is constitutional to prosecute a wife for harboring her fugitive hus1198 band or for being an accessory after the fact to his crime. (3) whether an accessory indictment that fails to specify the principal's crime is legally sufficient. Because we hold that the answer to the first two questions is
	OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the BIA's denial of both the application and the motion.
	OPINION/ORDER The INS charged that Cruz committed fraud when she contended that she was entitled to an adjustment of her status on the basis of a fraudulent marriage to Edwin Cruz. Cruz sought the adjustment because she was in this country illegally as she had overstayed the period her visitor's visa authorized for her presence here. If she was guilty of fraud in seeking the adjustment then she is subject to removal and would not be entitled to the adjustment. The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. ง 1003.1(b)(3) and we have jurisdiction under INA ง 242(a)(1). Are reviewing the judge's order. In view of the circumstance that there is no doubt that Cruz married Edwin Cruz at a time when there were no legal impediments barring their marriage so that. In a formal sense their marriage was valid. Was fraudulent. At this time we review the 2 immigration judge's decision and order to determine if it was supported by substantial evidence. Contending that the government did not meet its burden of proof with substantial and probative evidence that the marriage was fraudulent.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. His appeal from that decision was denied by the BIA without opinion on August 6. Which was denied by the BIA on March 26. That denial is the subject of this appeal. The BIA found that Lasprilla could not rely on his former wife's visa application on his behalf for grandfathering purposes because he was not a
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioners contend that they qualify for asylum and withholding of removal because they have a well founded fear of persecution under China's one child policy should they be returned to China. We will grant the petition for review on Petitioner Chen's asylum claim. I. Chen and his wife Gao are Chinese citizens from the Fujian province. Both Chen and Gao's applications were denied. Their cases were referred to immigration court. Their claims 3 were consolidated. He was not seeking asylum on the basis of his parents' activities. Both Petitioners testified that they hoped to have more children and were physically able to do so. Chen's application was timely. The IJ found that the couple had
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER The benefits of recognition are several. If an organization is officially recognized by the law school. The upside is even more benefits. Groups that register with the No. 05 3239 3 university also get university money (it is not clear how much) and access to meeting space at the SIU student center. CLS is a nationwide association of legal professionals and law students who share (broadly speaking) a common faith Christianity. Members are expected to subscribe to a statement of faith and agree to live by certain moral principles. Is that sexual activity outside of a traditional (one man. One woman) marriage is forbidden. It explained that while
	LEWIS V. BARNHART (3/19/2002, NO. 01-10851) The Act affords benefits to the widow of a fully insured individual if the widow is not remarried. Is between 50 and 60 years of age. Is disabled. Claiming she was disabled as of October . The Social Security Administration denied the claim because Appellant was
	OPINION/ORDER Was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on or about September 28. 1989 when Leslie was 12 years old. Leslie is removable under Immigration & Nationality Act (
	N:\DOCS\MELISSA\06-2310 DIRESS V. GONZALES OPINION.WPD Diress filed a motion to reopen based solely on an affidavit from her exhusband stating that their marriage was bona fide. The IJ's determinations regarding a discretionary waiver are solely within the Attorney General's discretion. 621 (8th Cir. 2006) (
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. Who is 7184 MEDINA MORALES v. The government argues that these aspects of the BIA's decision are discretionary and that IIRIRA. We also hold that ง 1252(a)(2)(B) does not affect our jurisdiction to review BIA decisions that are contrary to law. They began living apart but have no plans to divorce. When his visa was refused. Alleging that he was a removable alien.1 At a hearing on November 5. Most of its functions were transferred to the Bureau of Border Security and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. We will refer to the relevant government agency as the INS. 1 7186 MEDINA MORALES v. The respondent has failed to establish that allowing the respondent to seek previously abandoned relief on the basis of his relationship to his step father is deserving of greater discretionary consideration than holding him to the bargain he entered into with the United States when he asked for and accepted voluntary departure under section 240B(a) of the Act.
	OPINION/ORDER Dissent by Judge Silverman Defendant Roderick Hickman was erroneously named as Rodney Hickman. *The Honorable Myron H. We conclude that the right to procreate survives incarceration and that the factually unsupported arguments put forth by the Warden as legitimate penological reasons to restrict Gerber's exercise of his right to procreate are insufficient to justify dismissal of the complaint. I. BACKGROUND1 This case concerns a life term prisoner's effort to have a child by artificially inseminating his wife. Artificial insemination is a noncoital process in which semen is collected from a man under laboratory conditions and then introduced into a woman's body with a needleless hypodermic syringe at a favorable time in her ovulation cycle. 202 (1997) (noting a conservative estimate that there have been more than 500. Gerber was sentenced to 100 years to life imprisonment plus eleven years pursuant to California's three strikes law. He is constrained in employing the usual methods for achieving this goal because he is a life term prisoner incarcerated in California.
	OPINION/ORDER Of counsel on the brief was Michael P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Concluding that she was not
	OPINION/ORDER Dissent by Judge Silverman Defendant Roderick Hickman was erroneously named as Rodney Hickman. *The Honorable Myron H. We conclude that the right to procreate survives incarceration and that the factually unsupported arguments put forth by the Warden as legitimate penological reasons to restrict Gerber's exercise of his right to procreate are insufficient to justify dismissal of the complaint. I. BACKGROUND1 This case concerns a life term prisoner's effort to have a child by artificially inseminating his wife. Artificial insemination is a noncoital process in which semen is collected from a man under laboratory conditions and then introduced into a woman's body with a needleless hypodermic syringe at a favorable time in her ovulation cycle. 202 (1997) (noting a conservative estimate that there have been more than 500. Gerber was sentenced to 100 years to life imprisonment plus eleven years pursuant to California's three strikes law. He is constrained in employing the usual methods for achieving this goal because he is a life term prisoner incarcerated in California.
	ESTATE OF KOSOW V. COMMISSIONER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >Estate of Kosow v. District Judge:<p> <p> The Estate of Joseph Kosow has appealed the Tax Court's decision to disallow a deduction for a claim that was made against and paid by the estate. The Tax Court held that the estate had failed to prove that the agreement by the deceased that gave rise to the claim was an agreement supported by full and adequate consideration. Who were born in 1940 and 1945. Joseph had largely disassociated himself from the manufacturing businesses and was primarily engaged in financing activities through the Industrial Finance Corporation. A corporation of which he and his brother were equal shareholders.<p> Joseph's business ventures permitted him and his family to enjoy a very comfortable standard of living. One of which was a Cadillac that was regularly replaced. Joseph paid all the major bills as they came due and Barbara was not aware of any reliance on credit to sustain their standard of living. Joseph was very secretive about his business ventures. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3097.html">WILLIAM H. PERRY II V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-60201-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which would entitle him to permanent resident status despite the fact that he was no longer married to a U.S. citizen. Assaad contends that his attorney never notified him that the appeal was denied. A fact he discovered in January 2001 only after learning that the INS was seeking his arrest. Noting that it was not filed within the 90 day window provided by statute and BIA regulations. 8 C.F.R. ง 3.2(c)(2) (2001). Arguing that the time limit for filing the motion to reopen should have been tolled by his attorney's failure to inform him that his initial appeal to the BIA had been dismissed. He was not entitled to relief because he had provided no evidence in his motion to reopen showing that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to file the initial BIA appeal in a timely manner. 1 which bars judicial review of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/93-4307.opa.html">ESTATE OF KOSOW V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Estate of Kosow v. District Judge:<p> <p> The Estate of Joseph Kosow has appealed the Tax Court's decision to disallow a deduction for a claim that was made against and paid by the estate. The Tax Court held that the estate had failed to prove that the agreement by the deceased that gave rise to the claim was an agreement supported by full and adequate consideration. Who were born in 1940 and 1945. Joseph had largely disassociated himself from the manufacturing businesses and was primarily engaged in financing activities through the Industrial Finance Corporation. A corporation of which he and his brother were equal shareholders.<p> Joseph's business ventures permitted him and his family to enjoy a very comfortable standard of living. One of which was a Cadillac that was regularly replaced. Joseph paid all the major bills as they came due and Barbara was not aware of any reliance on credit to sustain their standard of living. Joseph was very secretive about his business ventures. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2428.man.html">DONATO V. AT&T (7/23/1998, NO. 97-2428)<BR></A><BR> For marital status discrimination in employment practices where the employee allegedly was discharged in retaliation for the actions of his spouse. We have studied the question and conclude that this case presents an important issue of Florida law that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court. To frame this issue for the Court's review we offer the following.</P> <P> This case is brought by Rosario Donato. Alleging that he was the victim of marital status discrimination when AT&. The Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to support Mrs. She was discharged from her position with AT&. T and was told that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE0MzEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1431-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Attorney General was obligated to grant his request under ง 1186a(c)(4). We have jurisdiction to review that legal question. We reject Atsilov's contention and hold that whether to grant the relief prescribed in ง 1186a(c)(4) to an alien who is admittedly eligible for such relief is ultimately a decision of the Attorney 1 2 3 1 For the purposes of this issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021643np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was born in El Salvador and entered the United States as a 1 student in 1981. Her putative husband withdrew his support of the petitioner's application and reported to the INS examiner in California that the marriage was a sham. Our review of the record persuades us that there is adequate evidence to support the petitioner's removal. We conclude that the deportation is not time barred and deny remand for consideration of the petitioner's application for suspension of deportation. The petitioner's deportation is not time barred because the five year statute of limitations in INA section 246 does not apply to deportations based on causes separate and distinct from those justifying rescission. Was subsequently granted an adjustment of status based on that marriage. Bamidele's wife confessed that the marriage was a sham. Asserting at that point that he had obtained his status through fraud and was thus deportable. Because it was based on the same facts. The deportation in Bamidele was subject to the same statutory time bar as the rescission.1 The INS knew of the sham marriage and subsequent adjustment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032301np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a petition by Jamil Azad for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1124p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have before us a petition filed by one parent against the other under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Concluding that the United States was Evan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTYxNDUtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6145-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider here whether a presumption of vindictiveness is created by the decision of a sentencing judge. At issue is the relation of two doctrines: (1) the rule that. Neither argument is persuasive. BACKGROUND The facts material to this appeal are undisputed. He and the Government agreed that his base </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022496P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges Murphy and McMillian were not present at oral arguments and participated in this decision utilizing the parties' briefs and a tape recording of the oral arguments. Because we find that the children's habitual residence was Israel at the time of their removal and that there is no grave risk of harm to the children if they are returned to Israel. Until their move to Israel in late July of 1999.3 Both Robert and Julie testified in the district court that the move to Israel was Julie's idea and that she was the one pushing for the family to make the move. Julie stated in the district court that she was torn about the move. Went ahead with it as a final effort to reconcile the couple's failing marriage.5 2 3 Sam was born on March 2. Jacob was born on July 5. Julie testified that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3164.html">DOWNS V. OPM<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032917p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fiadjoe was seven years of age. Fiadjoe was held as a slave of her father. Fiadjoe sought asylum and other relief on the ground that if she were returned to Ghana she. A consequence that Ghanian government authorities were unable or unwilling to prevent. Fiadjoe's testimony was not credible. Fiadjoe failed to establish that the government of Ghana was either unwilling or unable to control her father's sexual abuse. We conclude that these findings are not supported by reasonable. We will grant the petition and remand the case for a new hearing and development of the record before a different IJ. She is a member of the Ewe tribe and a native and citizen of Ghana. She was detained as an arriving alien and interviewed. Fiadjoe conceded that she was removable under ง212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA for being an intending immigrant not in possession of a valid visa or other entry document. Held an evidentiary hearing on April The enforcement functions of the INS have since been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2428.man.html">DONATO V. AT&T (7/23/1998, NO. 97-2428)<BR></A><BR> For marital status discrimination in employment practices where the employee allegedly was discharged in retaliation for the actions of his spouse. We have studied the question and conclude that this case presents an important issue of Florida law that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court. To frame this issue for the Court's review we offer the following.</P> <P> This case is brought by Rosario Donato. Alleging that he was the victim of marital status discrimination when AT&. The Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to support Mrs. She was discharged from her position with AT&. T and was told that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043420np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will uphold the IJ's findings </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3567_033.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fred Ssali is a native and citizen of Uganda. We have substituted the current Attorney General of the United States. He feared </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwNDEgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/03-4041%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denying his motion to remand to the Immigration Judge for consideration of United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as respondent. We find that the BIA's denial of Cao's motion to remand was an abuse of discretion. BACKGROUND Cao's Entry and Claim Petitioner is a thirty two year old male native and citizen of China who entered the United States from Canada around August 26. Which is implemented by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Cao subsequently said it was 1998. Stating that he was a farmer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-9531.htm">99-9531 -- YANG V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 11/29/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <p> Petitioner Chen Jean Yang petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen the deportation case against him. We determined that the BIA's decision that Yang was deportable was supported by substantial evidence and had not been an abuse of discretion. <u>See</u> <u>Yang v. 1255(e) (1991). <p> Motions for reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored. He first argues that the BIA was required to grant his motion to reopen. States only that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFE5EB62AE7F83BC88256C8600540B6A/$file/0070157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Paez * John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction over these timely filed petitions under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a) and 8 C.F.R. ง 208.18(e). Was raised in a village within Fu Chow City. Xin Kui Yu was raised in the same village as Xu Ming Li. He was twenty two years old. He told her that her relationship with Xin was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042127p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That inquiry will inform our determination as to whether Bagot is correct that Respondents deported him to Guyana illegally. Having been in his father's legal custody at the time the father was naturalized. He is derivatively a United States citizen. Who was in Guyana at the time and had never been to the United States. The District Court was confronted. As we are here. With the difficult question of how to define </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/110187A643449ABD88256FD400046BF9/$file/0371354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fernandez Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES BACKGROUND Kalal is a native and citizen of Colombia. A K 1 nonimmigrant visa was issued in Kalal's favor. A K 1 visa is issued for the sole purpose of facilitating a valid marriage between an alien and a United States citizen. Did so in error because she was not entitled to that status at that time. Removal proceedings were then commenced. That she was not entitled to adjustment of status. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a). The Rescission Decision Kalal asserts that the IJ should not have made a removal decision when he did because a separate rescission proceeding had to be concluded before a removal hearing could even be commenced. Must outline the statutory scheme before we proceed further. [1] A K 1 visa holder is not an immigrant. Is a person who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Survivor benefits are voided if a marriage is dissolved. OPM will not honor court decrees which award survivor benefits to former spouses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061122np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Curvan Wayne Gilkes (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF48386956684E8388256F540056492F/$file/0273538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ASHCROFT 16177 Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110851.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Act affords benefits to the widow of a fully insured individual if the widow is not remarried. Is between 50 and 60 years of age. Is disabled. Claiming she was disabled as of October 20. The Social Security Administration denied the claim because Appellant was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTUyMzlfc28ucGRm/04-5239_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-5209.htm">98-5209 -- MORAN V. APFEL -- 11/04/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Thelma Moran and Deborah Davis are a mother and daughter who appeal from the denial of their applications for a lump sum death benefit and surviving child's insurance benefits. The applications are based on the earnings of Robert Moran. Plaintiffs maintain that Thelma Moran was. Plaintiffs are entitled to benefits. We reverse the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remand for further proceedings. <p> Thelma and Robert Moran were married in a ceremonial marriage on December 31. They were divorced on April 6. She is entitled to benefits based on her status as widow of the insured. We must determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision and whether the Commissioner correctly applied the applicable legal standards. <em>See Shepherd v. Will apply in deciding the nature of Thelma Moran's relationship to Robert Moran and whether she is his widow. <em>See </em>20 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-2138.htm">99-2138 -- U.S. V. KORUH -- 04/03/2000<BR></A><BR> District Judge.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug09/03-60201-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which would entitle him to permanent resident status despite the fact that he was no longer married to a U.S. citizen. Assaad contends that his attorney never notified him that the appeal was denied. A fact he discovered in January 2001 only after learning that the INS was seeking his arrest. 2 On February 12. Noting that it was not filed within the 90 day window provided by statute and BIA regulations. 8 C.F.R. ง 3.2(c)(2) (2001). Arguing that the time limit for filing the motion to reopen should have been tolled by his attorney's failure to inform him that his initial appeal to the BIA had been dismissed. He was not entitled to relief because he had provided no evidence in his motion to reopen showing that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to file the initial BIA appeal in a timely manner. 1 which bars judicial review of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044601np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zhang argues that the decisions of the BIA and IJ are not supported by the evidence. Her children Mei Mei Lu and Tiang Qiang Lu were born in China in 1983 and 1985. In 1991 she claims she was fined 1. Zhang was the only witness to testify at her October 2000 hearing. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 2 1252(a)(1). As the BIA succinctly summarized: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-3100a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. He otherwise appears to have stayed out of the broader conspiracy. Luther was convicted of conspiracy and receipt of stolen property. I. This is the fifth appeal stemming from a series of convictions in a conspiracy to defraud the United States Department of Education (DOE). Worked as a telecommunications specialist at DOE and was responsible for installation and maintenance of telephone services throughout the Department. She was authorized to place orders under service contracts DOE had with two companies. Many of these goods were initially delivered to Elizabeth's home in Mechanicsville. Appellant Luther Mellen also known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1665.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Made out a will and left Kathleen Gass the house. The court concluded that Kathleen Gass was not entitled to assert the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the Rule was constitutional and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal the holdings that the Rule was not contrary to the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Rule 12 was repromulgated as Rule 24. Rule 24 was replaced by a substantially identical Rule 46. Rule 46 was revised to clarify the definitions of family member and visitor and recognize the power of the MDOC to grant individual employees limited exemptions to the Rule. An employee would have to submit a misleadingly titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2813_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An immigration judge held that Boyanivskyy was remov 1 The INS has since been subsumed into the newly created Department of Homeland Security. 2 No. 05 2813 able and not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. We agree that Boyanivskyy's immigration hearing was statutorily insufficient because the immigration judge excluded critical material evidence bearing directly on his claim of persecution. United States border agents were not fooled by the photo altered Austrian passport he showed them and they sent him back to Mexico. The applicable form of relief and the relief Boyanivskyy sought is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/043896U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserted fraud relating to the policy on the basis that Lois entered in a marriage with Richmond believing it was valid. Was still married to another woman. Black claimed further that her mother never would have lived with a man unless they were married. Which Lois could do whether or not the marriage was valid. Shortly thereafter Merrill Lynch advised Richmond that Black had contacted the company alleging that her mother's marriage to Richmond was fraudulent and void. The policy's proceeds were deposited with the court. United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. 2 1 Black alleged in her answer to the interpleader complaint that her mother's marriage to Richmond was induced by fraud as Richmond and his wife. Were never divorced.2 Black alleged that Richmond. Through the invalid marriage which Lois thought was valid. Shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That Lois would not have named Richmond as beneficiary had she known the marriage was invalid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2034_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the garnishment proceedings were pending. She argued that her interest in the marital assets was a matter for the state court. I. Background In November 2004 Frank Kollintzas was convicted by a jury of converting money from the City of East Chicago. Sentencing was scheduled for February 24. Where Kollintzas's property is located. Served interrogatories on third party account holders ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTI1Mjlfc28ucGRm/06-2529_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A75 565 761 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Petitioner Ming He Du. The government argues that this Court is unable to review the IJ's determination that Du's marriage certificate was fraudulent because that finding was made during his original asylum proceedings and Du failed to file a timely petition for review of that decision. Du asserts that because that finding is directly relevant to the denial of his adjustment of status application. See Both parties are partially correct. The government correctly asserts that Du's petition for review is timely only with respect to the denial of the BIA's decision denying his adjustment of status application and motion to reconsider his asylum application. It is precluded from passing on the merits of the underlying claim for relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3351_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claims that she was persecuted under China's onechild policy when Chinese officials forced her to abort her pregnancy. Because most of those reasons are either not supported by the record or are not central to her claim. Who is from Fujian province. When she was 19. She confirmed at a local hospital that she was one month pregnant. For the stated reason that they wanted to confirm that she was not pregnant. The officials learned that Dong was pregnant. The officials told her that because she was not married and had not reached the legal age for marriage they would perform the abortion and then put her in jail. They would ask her to go to the hospital to check if she was pregnant. Immigration officials determined that she was not eligible to enter and detained her. Dong said that the purpose of her trip to the United States was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQyNzdfc28ucGRm/03-4277_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQxMjA5X3NvLnBkZg==/03-41209_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1959486F2A7F5577882572F1007CF581/$file/0470804.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stating that Tang had not demonstrated that the abortion procedure performed on his wife was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2593.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants challenge the IJ's determination that Brito was deportable pursuant to Section 241(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0586n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including that he was detained and beaten in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I. BACKGROUND Lazar is a native and citizen of Iraq. Lazar explained that he was an Assyrian Christian. Therefore part of a minority group that was persecuted in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His brother also had been a member of the ADM but was forced to seek asylum in the United States when his pro ADM writings got him in trouble. Until one day he was arrested along with several other Assyrians. He was released after being detained for a week. At least to have Lazar sign his Second Asylum Application. A frivolous application for asylum is one which contains statements or responses to questions that have been deliberately fabricated. The IJ then asked Lazar whether he had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTA3Nzdfc28ucGRm/05-0777_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/991832P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held the required hearing and found that Johnson was not dishonest in her answers to voir dire questions concerning her familial relationships and possible bias against Tucker. The court found that there was no evidence that Johnson was subjected to outside influence during trial. Tucker argues that the district court's findings are erroneous because Johnson's explanation of why she did not reveal her relationship with her soon to be husband contradicts her other testimony. While the facts of this case are unusual and of understandable concern to Tucker. We hold that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. When this case was tried. Jim Guy Tucker was the governor of Arkansas. After he was convicted for conspiracy and mail fraud. Hayes is a former state prisoner whom Tucker had denied clemency. Hayes is also the nephew of a political activist. Who said he had asked Tucker to grant Hayes clemency and who recounted the circumstances under which an acting governor's attempt to grant clemency was blocked. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062736np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. I. Chen was born in China on September 30. Where he was detained by the INS as an immigrant not in possession of immigrant documentation.1 Chen states that. He was placed in a foster home in Minnesota in early January 1995. Chen claims that he was never informed of the hearing. Admitted this charge and conceded his removability. 2 1 were married by a judge. He claimed that the form was prepared by his lawyer and he just signed it. The marriage to Torres ended in divorce and Chen's status adjustment application was denied as abandoned on August 26. That their daughter was born on January 6. He related that his wife does not have Immigration status. That the marriage certificate was issued by a church but that the marriage was never registered with the government. Chen says that the couple would like to have more children. Chen was convicted of alcohol related charges in New Jersey. Four immigration court hearings were held from July 25. Chen testified that a reason the couple did not get married in a church was that the civil and church marriage ceremonies do not significantly differ. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4039_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Swore that she was living with him. She gave a different address and the agency produced an affidavit from Ybarra that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0209n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that Bagsby's appeal of the district court's refusal to dismiss Gehres' counterclaims is not properly before this Court. The Parties Bagsby and Gehres are both attorneys who were previously married to each other. The Gehres Family is comprised of Gehres's parents (Dennis and Lois Gehres). Magnevu is Gehres's former employer. Schnelz is a Michigan law firm that formerly represented Gehres in this action. Neither party shall be entitled to claim compensation of any kind or reimbursement for expenses from the other relating to legal or other services provided by one party for the other party or any law firm or other entity or person with whom the other was affiliated during the 2 During the spring and summer of 1999. Bagsby asked Gehres to assist him with evaluating the present value of a structured settlement for a case (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033295np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was without authority to stay removal proceedings pending the INS's determination of the waiver application. That denial was summarily affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI1OTQtYWcucGRm/04-2594-ag.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/033296np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition for review. Because a joint petition was never filed. Which authorizes the Attorney General to waive the joint filing requirement if one of three </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0892p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are engaged in. Or who would have the right to file or seek enforcement of administrative. The district court held that the case was not ripe. That the controversy is ripe because Cummings arguably alleges the statute threatens his right as an individual citizen to speak out against male and female homosexual acts and the state has expressly refused to offer any assurance it will not prosecute Cummings if he does so outside his church. Is not true of the institutional church plaintiffs. We will reverse the district court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in so far as its order applies to Reverend Cummings. We will. We also held that the possibility of private enforcement of the Act by activist homosexual groups was too remote to constitute an immediate threat of potential harm and. The case was not ripe and that the federal court should abstain under Railroad Commission of Texas v. It held that the case was not ripe. It is unlawful for an employer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/033508np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision of the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0117p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ali's petition is DENIED. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ali is a native and citizen of Bangladesh who entered the United States in 1991 without inspection by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Ali concedes that he is deportable. His primary claim is that he is entitled to asylum and withholding of deportation because he was. Fears he will be. The crux of Ali's testimony was that during the period from 1987 to 1990. He was persecuted by Bangladesh police because of his involvement with the The Hon orable H erman J. These conflicts occurred during public meetings for his party and were the result of members of opposing parties showing up at the meetings and causing trouble. He claimed that he was arrested because an opposing party was in power and he was unfairly blamed. Ali claims that some time after his release from prison another warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant was based upon false accusations by an opposing party. One document was a sworn statement from Sumner requesting the withdrawal of the I 130 application that she had filed on Ali's behalf. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0419n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where they were charged with remaining in the United States longer than permitted. He denied the application for asylum and withholding of removal on the grounds that it was not supported by credible 2 evidence. The evidence presented by the Ljuljdjurovics was insufficient to demonstrate asylum eligibility. The Ljuljdjurovics argue that the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in finding that the their application was not supported by credible evidence. The evidence presented by the them was insufficient to demonstrate asylum eligibility. The decisions of the BIA and IJ are therefore AFFIRMED. Are both natives and citizens of the former Yugoslavia. Was born in the United States on March 21. No. 03 3699 3 Milan was born and lived in Podgorica. Milan's father is Albanian and his mother is Serbian. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B78F684FD02875F2882570F1007AE6EA/$file/0435526.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Our challenge is to cut through the dense language to figure out what Congress meant in terms of surviving spouse benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214941.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Turner Murders his Wife and Joyce Brown The facts concerning the two murders largely are undisputed. Turner repeatedly arrived at Joyce's apartment asking to speak to his estranged Irene Hall also went by the nickname </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0075n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a citizen and The Honorable Kathleen M. 1994 marriage to United States citizen Julie Hernandez and the filing of an I 130 application to establish Petitioner's relation to Julie Hernandez.1 Under what (prior to subsequent amendment) was ง 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If an I 130 petition is granted. On grounds that Petitioner may have been born in the United States. Citizens are ineligible to submit I130 petitions. The letter stated that the decision was unappealable but that a motion to reopen could U.S. After finding that Petitioner was deportable because he was born in Mexico and had entered the United States without inspection. Once it had been established that Petitioner was not a citizen. Before the BIA's order was issued. Various attorneys have represented Petitioner throughout the deportation proceedings. The two disputed allegations were that Petitioner: (1) was not a citizen or national of the United States and (2) was a native and citizen of Mexico. The undisputed allegations were that 3 No. 02 3763 Petitioner: (3) entered the United States at an unknown place on an unknown date. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/327B310B7CF6D7A088256E68007D309C/$file/0273244.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA denied the motion because it concluded that Velezmoro was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status as a result of his failure to depart the United States pursuant to an earlier grant of voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. ง 1105a. The INS ceased to exist and its functions were transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security. This time finding that Velezmoro was ineligible for the relief requested because of his failure to depart as required by the earlier grant of voluntary departure. Discussion [1] Former section 242B of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7F7D0172E330F0C88256E5A00707CBB/$file/0070478.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2445.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0030p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That McFarland received an evidentiary hearing to which she was not entitled. McFarland was charged in Michigan state court with eleven counts of possession or possession with intent to deliver various drugs. Some of the pills were found in a closet in the southeast bedroom. Yukins No. 01 1360 prescription paraphernalia were found in a file cabinet in the room. Some pills and packets of powder were found in a safe in the room. A sifter that was of the type used in the cocaine trade and that had residue on it. There were four people who could have been linked to the drugs found in the southeast bedroom. The only person who was actually in the house at the time of the search was a man. A man was described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2AA2F8667452589288256D2100756DE3/$file/0070652.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We review a denial of asylum and an explicit finding by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052006np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition. I. Petitioner's testimony before the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0066n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Randhawa has conceded that she is subject to removal under INA ง 237(a)(1)(D)(i). The application was approved and Randhawa entered the United States as a conditional permanent resident on June 21. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1515.htm">00-1515 -- BRYCE V. EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF COLORADO -- 04/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Aidan's Church asserts that the First Amendment bars plaintiffs' sexual harassment claims because the remarks were made as part of ecclesiastical discussions on church policy towards homosexuals. Bryce was a Christian and had substantial experience in church leadership. Though she was neither an ordained minister nor a member of the Episcopal Church. Where Smith is an ordained minister. Smith is not associated with St. They informed her that she would be terminated as Youth Minister effective June 1999 because she was violating Episcopal doctrine. Aidan's. <p> Episcopal doctrine on homosexuality is articulated in the Lambeth Resolution. Which is the result of a conference of bishops from the worldwide Anglican communions held every ten years in Lambeth. Believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051094np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sharen Anderson was an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/118676828955366188256EE6005591E8/$file/0370342.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They claim that they were persecuted in Fiji because of their mixed race. In part because much of the violence was instigated. I. Althea Faruk is Christian and native Fijian. Mohammed Faruk is a Muslim of Indo Fijian heritage. There are strong racial tensions in Fiji: According to the State Department Report in the record. Almost all of whom are Christian. Most of whom are Hindu or Muslim. Who was also his employer. Mohammed and Althea knew that they were being closely watched. Mohammed and Althea were afraid that if they continued their relationship. An American pastor who was going to Fiji volunteered to perform their wedding ceremony in Fiji. In early 1993 they were married in secret in Fiji. They wanted to remain in Fiji because it was home and they hoped that things would be better once they were married. Mohammed was fired from his job at the family business. When Althea was home alone. He stood to the side when he saw how violent Althea's native Fijian attackers were. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252 (2000). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/02-3081.htm">02-3081 -- ELLIS V. SHELTON -- 10/08/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This is a pro se state prisoner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-2381.htm">97-2381 -- JEGART V. APFEL -- 08/07/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appeals the district court's decision upholding the Commissioner's refusal to reentitle her to child disability benefits. <u>See</u> 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9544.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) On February 4. Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action. (2) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a). He was arrested about one year later. That petition was denied after the district director determined that the marriage had been entered into to evade the immigration laws. He testified that he is a Sikh from Punjab. Where he was a member of the All India Sikh Student Federation (AISSF) and experienced persecution due to his Sikh religion and his political involvement in the AISSF. Was murdered in a fake encounter in June 1993 by para military and police authorities. Sondh was arrested at home. He was released five days later after his family paid 50. He was arrested at his uncle's house and detained a second time. He was beaten. He was released after his family paid 100. Sondh claimed the police are still looking for him and several general letters from friends and family members supported this claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0092a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church located within the Catholic Diocese of Toledo. Father Willman is responsible for all religious matters within the parish. She was awarded a full time eighth grade teaching position for the 1994 1995 school year. Cline's employment was governed by the standard St. 2) a statement that the signer will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0140p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitioner's surname is spelled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQwOTYxX3NvLnBkZg==/03-40961_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/963231P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tucker was indicted in a twenty one count indictment. Tucker was indicted on the conspiracy charge and ten substantive counts based on individual transactions. The district court dismissed Counts 8 11.1 The remainder of the case was submitted to the jury. Tucker contends the convictions should be reversed because after trial it was discovered that a juror was married to a former state prisoner to whom Tucker. Tucker further objected to the empaneling of a juror who gave answers to a written jury questionnaire that were inconsistent with a defendant's right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence. Tucker contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of mail fraud and conspiracy. Hale was a municipal judge in Little Rock. All were active in state politics in one capacity or another and all had multifarious business interests. Hale told McDougal that the lending limit was $150. The lending limit was a function of the amount of capital Hale had available to invest in Capital Management Services. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/976059P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which he was awarded at the conclusion of their divorce proceedings. Marlyce's bankruptcy case was filed on July 19. The record before us does not indicate whether this mobile home is the same as that in Kenyon. This agreement was approved by the court and incorporated into its Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is * * * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. * * * The Honorable Gary A. Anna Hinkel is an appellee only and not a cross appellant. 2 1 reversed and this cause remanded with directions that summary judgment be granted in favor of appellant. The underlying cause is an interpleader action brought by Prudential Life Insurance Company of America (Prudential). in the Prudential initiated this action in regard to a life insurance policy it had issued to Gail Hinkel amount of $200. The Hinkels were divorced. herein. Curtis and Gail Hinkel were granted joint custody of their minor child. Which was incorporated by the Decree of Dissolution. matters. The issues presented came before the District Court on appellant's motion for judgment on the pleadings which was later converted to a motion for summary judgment with the consent of counsel for the parties herein. [O]ur review is therefore do novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E27F8FE4304B02388256F0F00799041/$file/0330269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendants James Montgomery and Mary Lou O'Connor were convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit mail fraud and committing mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. งง 371 and 1341. Reservations were processed at Sun Village's office. Clerks fielded calls and consulted the calendar board that hung in the office to determine which units were available. Signifying that the unit was ready for the next tenant. She suspected that O'Connor was diverting money UNITED STATES v. MONTGOMERY 13393 from owners by assigning reservations to units that were no longer managed by Sun Village and by deleting reservations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3984_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was disabled. Both Allen and Patricia were convicted of incest and sentenced to years in prison. Allen Muth argues that Wisconsin's incest statute is unconstitutional insofar as it 2 No. 03 3984 seeks to criminalize a sexual relationship between two consenting adults. Were arrested by the State of Wisconsin in 1997 and charged with incest in violation of Wisconsin law. The facts leading up to this 1 arrest are not pleasant. Allen was one of the oldest and Patricia one of the youngest. During their childhood they were in and out of foster care. They and several other siblings were involved in a cycle of sexual abuse and incest. Although they were separated for some length of time. Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055410np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. ง 1003.1(b)(3) and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. งง 1252(a) and (b). The background of these proceedings insofar as it involves a paper trail is quite complex. In reality the underlying circumstances triggering it are quite straight forward. The actual dispute centers on the substantive issue of whether his marriage is bona fide. Pointed out that Badreddine did not have a current. The IJ indicated that there was no reasonable likelihood that Badreddine's visa application would be approved. The BIA held that the IJ did not abuse his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTI5OTQtYWdfc28ucGRm/05-2994-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4195_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the petition was approved. No visa was immediately available. The only legal option available to OE The petitioner's name is identified in the administrative record as Karyana Hidayat. We do so as well. 2 No. 04 4195 Hadayat was to return to Indonesia and await action on his brother's petition. This waiting game came to an abrupt end in 2003 when Hadayat registered with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the newly promulgated National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) and was immediately placed into removal proceedings. Arguing that he was entitled to remain in the United States based on his now approved petition. Which was also unsuccessful. He also raises the new argument that he was unconstitutionally targeted for registration and removal based on his ethnicity and religion. That Hadayat was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ0OTJfc28ucGRm/04-4492_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A79 682 438 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 petition for review is GRANTED. The BIA's order is VACATED. The case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. We will vacate and remand for reconsideration if the agency's reasoning or its factfinding process was sufficiently flawed. Several of the reasons the IJ gave for his finding were not supported by substantial evidence. Had probably been manufactured for or by him because he was otherwise too young to credibly claim that he would be subject to forced sterilization. It is doubtful. That this view of China's governance structure is the type of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0385p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff's complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. ง 1983. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants wrongfully terminated her at will employment with the county because of her intimate association with one Steve Milam. Defendants responded that Plaintiff's relationship was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3317.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Bender was formerly a civilian employee at the Department of the Air Force and retired under the Civil Service Retirement System. Bender's first marriage was to Margaret Bender. The AJ concluded that Bender did not meet his burden of proving that there were circumstances in this case that would have allowed OPM to waive its statutory deadline for electing the annuity. Bender's election was untimely and properly denied. Bender argued before the AJ that he was unaware of the deadline to elect the annuity. The AJ recognized that there is an exemption to the twoyear requirement for an annuity election where OPM has failed to show that it complied with the notice requirement of 5 U.S.C. ง 8839. Lease stated in her affidavit that all annuitants were mailed a copy of a general notice with the requirements for a survivor annuity election every year. It was uncontested that OPM had the correct address for Bender. He also acknowledged that it was possible that he received that information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. We have considered Ms. Sarvasova's claim was denied because she did not satisfy one of the conditions required by 5 C.F.R ง 831.642 (2005) ญ specifically. That she was married to the annuitant. Seeking review of the determination that she was not entitled to a survivor annuity under 5 U.S.C. ง 8341 (2000). Sarvasova's arguments challenging as unfair the application of the statute because it would leave her in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ5NzMtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-4973-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That inadequate grounds were presented for a remand based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Gonzales is substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft. 1 1 Richard Kulics. Yang is a native of China whose application is based on opposition to China's coercive population control policy. Who was the only witness to testify. That he was prejudiced by the fact that the last page of the transcript of the IJ's oral decision was missing. That his testimony was not credible and therefore that his burden of proof was not sustained. Subscribed to the following statement: My name is Yi Long Yang. Was employed in a bag factory. Although I was not married in China. I had a girlfriend who I was intimate with. Our application was rejected as my girlfriend was underage. She was taken forcibly for the examination. Upon verification of her pregnancy she was forced to submit to an involuntary abortion. We were forced to pay a 3. I was angry with the officials. I was able to escape. I was apprehended and returned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQyNTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4252_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A final order was issued after October 30. Is now called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQwNzZfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4076_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed and Romero's petition is denied. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CHRISTINE M. Romero argues: (i) that his right to equal protection is violated because the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3111_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY5MzUtYmtfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6935-bk_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before this Court is relatively straightforward: When marital assets have been awarded to the wife in a state court matrimonial proceeding. Are those assets nevertheless part of the husband's bankruptcy estate if a Chapter 7 petition is filed after the state court's decision but before the state court judgment is entered? Finding that the entry of the state court judgment is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/032063P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Al Khouri was denied a full and fair hearing on his claims for relief before the IJ. Al Khouri was employed as a taxi cab driver. He also testified that Syrian and Hizballah forces have gone to his house in search of him. He believes that his mistreatment is due to his refusal to cooperate with their efforts to recruit his assistance and because he is Christian. Which was admitted into evidence at Mr. Hizballah is an Iranian backed Shi'a Muslim militia with a strong presence in southern Lebanon. Al Khouri was initially represented by an attorney. The application was written in English. Al Khouri's native language is Arabic. An interpreter was present at the hearing. Al Khouri if the information in his application was correct. Al Khouri responded that it was. Al Khouri was acting pro se. What's going to happen next is that I'm going to ask you questions. That is bring out the information is by questions and answers. Al Khouri was not credible and that he did not merit relief from the removal order on any of the grounds asserted in his application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3910.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brenda Combes was the insured person. Was surprised to discover that Brenda had changed the beneficiaries on these policies (or had tried to do so) from himself and the couple's daughter Ashley to Brenda's sister. The third policy was part of a benefit plan established under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Since their interests are aligned for present purposes). Seeking a declaration that she was the sole beneficiary of that policy as well and demanding payment of the proceeds. The Pennsylvania and North Carolina actions were later transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. The three cases were consolidated. All contested proceeds were deposited with the court. While we do not doubt that David and Ashley were sympathetic figures. We conclude that the oral agreement is not sufficient under the law of Illinois to override a written designation of a beneficiary on an insurance policy. We also conclude that the flaws David identifies in the ERISA change of beneficiary form were not enough to defeat its effectiveness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1EC05C52E74EC6988256AC400058D31/$file/0070478.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313188.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bragging that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3274.html">LINDA L. VACCARO V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code ง 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9578.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She asserts that the agency decision is based on legal error and therefore this court has jurisdiction under the REAL ID Act. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We conclude that the ruling presented for review was a discretionary decision and we lack subject matter jurisdiction to review it. The petition for review is dismissed. Thorn is a native and citizen of Hungary who entered the United States in March 1998 on a visitor visa. Before the divorce was finalized. Which was approved in September 2003. She then filed the petition that is the subject of this appeal: an I 485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Thorn had used alcohol and illicit drugs and was often unemployed. He concluded that the marriage was a sham. Even though the IJ indicated that the I 360 application may have been approved in error. Thorn discretionary relief under 1255 based on his findings that the marriage was a sham and was not viable at the time of Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052609np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Cesar August Montes De Oca Montero petitions this court for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2925_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> So he OE This appeal was originally decided by unpublished order of August 9. Ko now argues that it was error for the second IJ to reconsider the first IJ's decision to reopen her case. She resumed fulltime studies the next semester and tried to have her F 1 status reinstated. She was unsuccessful. When the government learned that Ko's visa was no longer valid. The notice was sent by certified mail to Ko's last known address: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3111_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0254p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the beneficiary of that plan. Was an employee of the company and a plan participant until his death in 1995. Who were also parties to the action below. He was married to Brenda Fuston Petry Bryant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3093.html">RUTH T. HAIRSTON V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Esra Acikalin Hudson</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin right:.5in. Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>James C. Hairston is entitled to receive the former spouse survivor annuity. Text indent:0in'>I.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>BACKGROUND</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='text indent:0in'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>Ruth and Paul Hairston were married on July 25. Hairston's] Civil Service pension through his employment at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard is found to be community property and is ordered joined and each monthly payment is ordered divided equally between the parties.". <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The final judgment of dissolution was not entered until March 18. Hairston was no longer capable of qualifying as a surviving spouse entitled to receive the survivor annuity under 5 U.S.C. ง 8341(b) as elected by Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/964166P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judy and John Hill were married in 1970 in Missouri. John acknowledged in his deposition taken in this case that he was dealing with a drug problem when the couple separated. Which in turn was causing financial difficulties for the couple. John was unrepresented by counsel during the dissolution proceedings and did not appear or contest the divorce. The dissolution was granted as to him by default. Judy was diagnosed with breast cancer. She still was employed by AT&T at the time of her death. Both John Hill and Sharron Long claimed they were entitled to all the funds in Judy's employee savings plan. Long's competing claim apparently was based on the Hills' divorce decree and the fact that Hill was not Judy's spouse at the time of her death. By the time Hill was notified of the decision in September 1992. The letter was returned to the company. A copy of the June letter was sent to him via ordinary mail. 2 1 AT&T had disbursed the funds. Holding that they were preempted by ERISA. The issue of whether and how a divorce decree may divest a person of beneficiary rights is not explicitly considered in ERISA and thus is a question of federal common law.4 See Mohamed v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0045p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who concluded that Petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. งง 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) & (G)(i). The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider because it was not timely filed. Petitioner is a citizen of India and a medical doctor. Petitioner was admitted to this country on or about June 21. This marriage was judicially annulled in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas on December 12. A hearing was held on the notice to appear before United States Immigration Judge Elizabeth A. As she was no longer married.2 On May 8. Finding that Petitioner was removable on all grounds stated in the notice to appear. Petitioner acknowledged that her motion to reopen was not filed within 90 days of the October 31. The BIA noted that her motion to reopen was untimely. (B) the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien spouse. Holding that this Court did not have jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision under 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(c)(4). Concluding that it was untimely. The 30 day deadline in 8 U.S.C. ง 1229a(c)(6)(B) was tolled while her petition for review was pending before this Court.5 This is a question of law that the Court reviews de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5293a.html">AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs <p> <p> <p> were <i>Frank W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Ann M. Taylor</i> was on the brief for amici curiae National <p> Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it <p> was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and <p> enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens <p> to reject a publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/026073P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald Lurie (Ronald) was a general and managing partner of Popkin & Stern at that time. This deficiency judgment was based on the difference between the value of the property of Popkin & Stern's estate and the amount needed to pay all of the allowed claims against Popkin & Stern.2 On June 17. He was incarcerated. The Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to make a claim against a general partner of a bankrupt partnership if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115313.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed. While he was in college. Hall was commissioned back into the Army. The Halls initially were stationed at Fort Dix. Hall testified at sentencing that the separations were due to marital problems involving perceived financial difficulties. Making noises for almost an hour that indicated he was banging her head against the wall. Hall was overheard saying. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0222p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was a thirty one year old male citizen of Iraq who entered the United States on or about May 1. He is an ethnic Chaldean who practices the Catholic religion. There is evidence that Assyrian and Chaldean Christians are considered by other Iraqis to constitute a distinct non Arab ethnic minority. Which is also considered an application for non discretionary withholding of removal. The parties and the interpreter were all present in a courtroom in Detroit. Petitioner claims that he began to be harassed at the age of 15 when he was forced to attend mandatory religion classes in Islam at his high school. He was arrested one day at school for distributing anti religion and anti government fliers. He was detained for about 33 days at various locations. He was released and1returned home. He claims he was not allowed to return. Petitioner testified that he was conscripted into the Iraqi Army in February 1991. That he was detained for three months. When he was found reading the Bible in his barracks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/01-15313.opn.html">HALL V. HEAD (10/25/2002, NO. 01-15313)<BR></A><BR> Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1676.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joglar with whom Esther Crispin was on brief for appellants. Portela and Smith & Nevares were on brief for appellees. Aybar's then girlfriend and future wife who also was a Wometco employee. The district court also found that although appellants' actions may have violated Aybar's Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that appellants' claims against Otero Martinez were barred because Otero Martinez enjoyed absolute immunity as a state prosecutor prosecuting the state's case. 4 4 On March 31. That the statute of limitations had tolled because he was a minor during the relevant period. Although the district court acknowledged that Aybar was a minor during much of the time preceding the filing of the complaint (a fact which normally would toll the running of the statute of limitations). Appellants contended that Aybar was not married during the period between March 25. Although Judge Fuste recognized that Aybar actually was not married during much of the time preceding the filing of the complaint. He found that Aybar represented to the court that in fact he was married during the relevant time by referring to Morales Laboy as his wife and claiming injury to their conjugal relationship. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-10798.man.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054878np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny Lin's petition for review. Lin was detained upon entry and. If he were removed from the United States and returned to China. The government would put him in jail and force his girlfriend to have an abortion. The record does not reveal the exact date on which this application was submitted. While the form itself is dated March 28. This is clearly not correct because. 2002 but the application was apparently prepared by a Philadelphia attorney. The application was definitely prepared before March 2 2 At his merits hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ). Lin testified that he became romantically involved with a woman from his village in January 2001 but was unable to marry her because they were both below the legal age of marriage at the time. Doctors at the local hospital discovered that his girlfriend was pregnant in April 2001. He learned that family planning officials had forced his girlfriend to have an abortion on September 14. If he were removed from the United States and returned to China. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/733B21FA0EEF5EE788256AE20059A0F9/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-4336.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAND (12/31/1998, NO. 97-4336)<BR></A><BR> Appellant Abraham Brand was found guilty of willfully failing to pay a past due support obligation. Arguing that his failure to pay was not willful. That the state court order that formed the basis of his support obligation under the Act is invalid. That he is unable to pay. Three children were born to this union: a girl in 1980. Brand was a successful entrepreneur. Neither Brand nor his lawyer were present at the final hearing. Which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code ง 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).2 A first 2 We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3229.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Giese was not eligible to elect an annuity with survivor benefits for his spouse under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) because he delayed such an election. Because the decision of the Board is in accordance with law and is supported by substantial evidence. This court must affirm the Board's decision unless it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BB99FF9008CD50988256F85007A4080/$file/0430009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 2) the Rape in the Third Degree conviction and a Delivery of Marijuana for Consideration conviction were not related under Guidelines section 4A1.2(a)(2). 3) discretionary downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was neither allowed nor warranted under Guidelines section 5K2.0. We have jurisdiction over the appeal of the first two rulings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ง 1291 and 18 U.S.C. ง 3742(a). We do not have jurisdiction over the appeal of the third ruling. The Rape in the Third Degree conviction arose from conAsberry was sentenced under Guidelines section 2K2.1. Asberry was arrested on July 1. His plea stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043228p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for the return of a child to Australia under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The principal issue is whether the District Court correctly held the petitioner consented to the removal or retention of the child under article 13(a) of the Hague 2 Convention. We will reverse and remand. The factual background is straightforward. Baxter and Torin have since been living in the home of Mr. Baxter was born in Selbyville and has dual U.S. and Australian citizenship. 3 1 Before September 2003. Torin and his parents lived together as a family in Australia.2 Their lifestyle was itinerant. The Baxters' last home together was on Bathurst Island. Their stay there was short and troubled. The community was beset with problems. The couple eventually decided the environment was unsuitable for their child. The parties dispute whether the purpose of the trip to Delaware was to relocate definitively in the United States or to visit relatives for a time while giving the family an opportunity to plot a new course. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0145p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Amare will be subjected to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM0NThfc28ucGRm/04-3458_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-3015.html">CAROLE A. SIMPSON V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Bernard E. Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Simpson is not entitled to receive the annuity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. Text indent:.5in'>Carole and Harold Simpson were married in 1966.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u><span style='color:black'>Simpson v. Simpson.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><st1:State><st1:place><u>Id.</u></st1:place></st1:State><span style='m </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043336p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will grant the petition. 1 are natives and citizens of Indonesia. Three of the incidents are relevant to our decision. Who was a child at the time. She was living in Jakarta looking for employment when massive riots broke out there. Petitioner relates that during the riots many Indonesian women were raped and killed. They were authorized to remain in the United States until November 16. They were placed in removal proceedings. The case was referred to Immigration Judge Donald Ferlise. The IJ reasoned that the documents were not certified as required under 8 C.F.R. ง 287.6. The IJ found that the asylum application was untimely and that petitioner had failed to establish changed circumstances materially affecting her eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay. On the purported implausibility that petitioner was present </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0046p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was terminated from her position as a jailer at the Loudon County Sheriff's Department in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights of political and intimate association. Loudon County and Guider respond that even if Sowards's First Amendment rights were violated. Political affiliation is a proper consideration for the position of a jailer under the Elrod/Branti exception. They claim that Guider is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. A genuine issue of material fact exists whether Guider's action was substantially motivated by this activity. Because political considerations are not appropriate for the position of a jailer. Guider is not entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. She was terminated allegedly because she had missed an outstanding warrant. Ricker was arrested on a DUI charge and brought to the LCSD jail. Sowards was working on that date and was responsible for checking for any outstanding warrants on persons brought into the facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4A6FD5E9FD9B68A88256C2C00580997/$file/0135467.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court should have promptly adjudicated Jeremiah's Hague Convention petition in accor 13310 HOLDER v. Does not now mean that he is barred from raising them in federal court by the preclusive effect of the state court judgment or that he has waived his rights under the Hague Convention. This dispositive requirement is not met because the issues in a suit under the Hague Convention case will not be resolved by a state court custody suit in which no Hague Convention claim is raised. We also vacate the district court's denial of Carla's motion for attorney's fees on the grounds that it is premature. BACKGROUND THE HAGUE CONVENTION AND ICARA The Hague Convention is a multilateral international treaty on parental kidnapping to which the United States and Germany are signatories. Article 12 therefore provides that when a child is removed from one signatory nation to another. Article 16 provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/01-10433.opn.html">BLANCHARD V. DELOACHE-POWERS (3/28/2002, NO. 01-10433)<BR></A><BR> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053227np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also have a petition for a writ of habeas corpus Lindaastuty filed in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ง 2241. We will deny her petition for review and dismiss her habeas petition as moot. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Felicia Lindaastuty is a native and citizen of Indonesia. She was admitted into the United States on or about December 5. That relief was denied by the Immigration Judge. The BIA held that an alien who entered into a marriage after commencement of removal proceedings can have a motion to reopen for adjustment of status granted. Where the alien has presented clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is bona fide. 3 1 denied that motion. Was represented by counsel. Lindaastuty filed a petition for review of the BIA's denial of her second motion to reopen which is the petition now before us. Lindaastuty was scheduled to appear for an interview regarding her application for adjustment of status on June 24. The Department of Homeland Security ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/043409P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alberto Gonzales has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States and is substituted as the appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 1 applications for asylum. Setiadi's other family members are also Catholic. Setiadi alleges that Agus is a member of an extremist Muslim group. There is no allegation that Agus is affiliated with or has any influence with the Indonesian authorities. Nothing in the record indicates that any of these incidents were reported to the police. While some details of the treatment 2 Nunundhayaty received from her family are in dispute. 2 there is little doubt that her marriage to Setiadi caused considerable strife in her family. Setiadi also alleges that a friend of his father was stabbed and killed. Setiadi believed that Muslims were responsible for his death. There is no further evidence in the record concerning that death except for Setiadi's assertions. The attackers were motivated because they believed his brother was Christian. Setiadi believes his brother's attackers were Muslim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Matkov</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Her immigration from China was arranged by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9563.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges.(2) Appellant Bhupinder Singh Sondh is a native and citizen of India who came to the United States in 1996 on a temporary visa. He was placed under removal proceedings and sought various forms of relief. The procedural background of his efforts to avoid deportation is somewhat complicated. His efforts were largely unsuccessful. 2005 WL 319036 (10th Cir. 2005) (1) This order is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> (affirming removal order). Which was denied based on Sondh's failure to establish the bona fides of the marriage. Which was also denied. While the asylum appeal was pending before the BIA (over two years). Sondh was divorced and remarried. The basis for this motion was Mittelsted's pending visa petition. The BIA can exercise its discretion to grant a motion to reopen as long as certain criteria are met. One of those criteria that the government not oppose the motion was not met. The BIA noted the government opposed the motion on the ground that Sondh's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Singleton initially claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his knowledge of the police chief's allegedly improper purchase of an automobile. Singleton was discharged After discovery revealed that 2 because his wife and daughter had plotted to frame the police chief. Della Price were elected members of the City of Advance's city council. Was not a named defendant. The City of Advance did not have a written employment agreement with Singleton. Singleton's employment was terminable at will. This statement was recorded by private investigator David George. Singleton learned that the defendants' sole reason for their action was the recording of Joann Singleton plotting to bribe the chief of police. As an employee at will under Missouri law. Singleton did not have a liberty or property interest in his employment sufficient to implicate procedural due process rights. Was engaging in improper conduct by conspiring to bribe the Chief of Police. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-10798.man.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972531.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that a Florida judgment dissolving his marriage is valid. The property settlement ordered in the New Jersey decree is more favorable to the wife than that provided in the Florida decree. Did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the federal courts usually decline review of domestic relations cases over which the state courts traditionally have jurisdiction. Following is the relevant sequence of events: 2/25/94: The husband sued for divorce in state court in Florida. 3/14/94: The wife was served with process in New Jersey. 3/21/94: The wife sued for divorce in state court in New Jersey. 3/22/94: The wife filed in the New Jersey court an emergency application asking that the husband be restrained from proceeding in the Florida divorce action. The wife filed a response alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence. Counsel for both parties were present and participated. 3/31/94: The New Jersey court found that the husband was subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the New Jersey court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA55B1AE87FE25C388257082007FF75A/$file/0310421.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ง 1291. Because Kortgaard's sentence was increased under ง 4A1.3 and exceeds the maximum authorized sentence based solely on the jury's verdict under the then mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. Factual and Procedural History Kortgaard was originally charged with manufacturing marijuana based on his cultivation of 50 or more plants and pos UNITED STATES v. The district court departed upward to a range of 37 to 46 months and ultimately sentenced Kortgaard to 46 months in prison.1 The upward departure was based on the judge's finding that the applicable guideline range inadequately represented the seriousness of Kortgaard's criminal history and his likelihood of recidivism. Kortgaard was on supervised release from a 1994 heroin conviction at the time he committed the instant offense. 2 All citations to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in this opinion are to the version incorporating amendments effective November 1. Kortgaard maintains that the district court's findings and the resulting upward departure are erroneous on the merits and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0452E7A0BAF1DA2D88256AA7007D2E20/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/022898P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pelayo Jose Cuervo were convicted of numerous narcotics and firearms offenses. The firearms convictions that were unrelated to the conspiracy. Five kilograms or more of cocaine.3 The defendants were also charged with using firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy. The defendants were convicted of many of the charged counts.7 Norman was convicted of maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. He was also convicted of nine substantive counts of distributing methamphetamine. Cuervo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. Schoenauer was convicted of conspiracy to distribute between fifty and five hundred grams of methamphetamine and between one hundred grams and one thousand kilograms of marijuana. Schoenauer was then tried separately and found guilty of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. 3 4 5 6 7 21 U.S.C. งง 846 and 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. ง 924(c)(1)(A). 21 U.S.C. ง 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. ง 922(g)(9). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-3304.htm">02-3304 -- U.S. V. PEREZ-MADRID -- 08/01/2003<BR></A><BR> Perez Madrid argued that his prior deportation was constitutionally deficient and that the government was therefore barred from using it to establish the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974336.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Abraham Brand was found guilty of willfully failing to pay a past due support obligation. Arguing that his failure to pay was not willful. That the state court order that formed the basis of his support obligation under the Act is invalid. That he is Honorable Donald P. While this appeal was pending. Three children were born to this union: a girl in 1980. Brand was a successful entrepreneur. Neither Brand nor his lawyer were present at the final hearing. Which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974336.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Abraham Brand was found guilty of willfully failing to pay a past due support obligation. Arguing that his failure to pay was not willful. That the state court order that formed the basis of his support obligation under the Act is invalid. That he is unable to pay. Three children were born to this union: a girl in 1980. Brand was a successful entrepreneur. Including a While this appeal was pending. Neither Brand nor his lawyer were present at the final hearing. Which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwNTc0LWFnX29wbi5wZGY=/03-40574-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adverse credibility findings of the BIA and IJ were based on substantial evidence insofar as they relied on inconsistencies between petitioner's account of persecution in an airport interview and her subsequent testimony before the IJ. Gonzales is substituted as Respondent. Adverse credibility findings of the BIA and IJ were based on substantial evidence insofar as they relied on inconsistencies between petitioner's account of persecution in an airport interview and her subsequent testimony before the IJ. She was told by her mother not to return home from her boyfriend's house (where she had gone to stay following her demonstration) because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2531.man.html">RASH V. RASH (7/27/1998, NO. 97-2531)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that a Florida judgment dissolving his marriage is valid. The property settlement ordered in the New Jersey decree is more favorable to the wife than that provided in the Florida decree.</P> <P> The wife moved to dismiss. Did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the federal courts usually decline review of domestic relations cases over which the state courts traditionally have jurisdiction. Following is the relevant sequence of events:</P> <P> 2/25/94: The husband sued for divorce in state court in Florida.</P> <P> 3/14/94: The wife was served with process in New Jersey.</P> <P> 3/21/94: The wife sued for divorce in state court in New Jersey.</P> <P> 3/22/94: The wife filed in the New Jersey court an emergency application asking that the husband be restrained from proceeding in the Florida divorce action. The wife filed a response alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence.</P> <P> The same day. Counsel for both parties were present and participated.</P> <P> 3/31/94: The New Jersey court found that the husband was subject to the <EM>in personam</EM> jurisdiction of the New Jersey court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043738np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A petition for alien relative (Form I 130) was filed on his behalf with the appropriate District Director within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Both petitions were denied on September 20. Ghorab was provided a rights warning and he agreed to answer questions. He was questioned about terrorism by Egyptian national security officers approximately once a year. Ghorab explained that this procedure was routine for imams in his home country. He believed he would have no trouble returning home. The IJ voiced his understanding that Ghorab was not seeking asylum. Ghorab's counsel stated that the IJ was correct in his statement of the specific forms of relief sought by his client. The purpose of the continuance was to provide Ghorab time to file rebuttal evidence to support his petition and to await a final decision on that matter. Ghorab was represented by new counsel. That Ghorab was unaware of those arrests prior to the September 3 hearing. Ghorab had affirmatively rejected the relief he was now seeking in his September 3 hearing by specifically stating that he was not seeking asylum. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/01-10433.opn.html">BLANCHARD V. DELOACHE-POWERS (3/28/2002, NO. 01-10433)<BR></A><BR> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1688.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nolen was entitled to absolute qua sijudicial immunity and that Mr. Nolen was entitled to 2 No. 01 1688 qualified immunity. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Mr. Nolen is not protected by absolute quasi judicial immunity. It is the opinion of the majority of the panel that Mr. A third member of the panel is of the opinion that Mr. Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Snyder alleged that he was estranged from his wife. That his wife was in sole possession of his non marital property. That he was incarcerated in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. That his assets were at substantial risk because his wife had indicated to Mr. His actions in `whiting out' [the] same was an `impermissible encroachment of judicial authority.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/447EE9A0AF42375988256E5A00707C4F/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A1B530D534423F488256FE7005C1750/$file/0330010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The jury also rendered a special verdict that several properties were used to facilitate his crimes or were proceeds of them and should be forfeited to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. ง 853. We must decide whether forfeiture was proper where Victor has never held title to the two forfeited properties. Operates in rem against the property itself on the theory that the property itself is guilty of wrongdoing. 1414 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/98-8763.opn.html">ROSS V. CLAYTON COUNTY (4/26/1999, NO. 98-8763)<BR></A><BR> To Clayton County because none of Ross's constitutional rights were violated. Ross was hired by Clayton County as a correctional officer on a 12 month probationary. Andre Ross was on probation for failure to pay child support. Andre was accused of abducting a woman and raping her at the apartment he shared with Ross. Ross was summoned to meet with Warden Camp and other supervisors. They claim that he was allowed to relate his side of the story at that time. Ross was demoted to a lower ranking position. Written notice of the demotion explaining that it was for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0113n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted in a month long jury trial that featured a charge of conspiracy involving the growing and harvesting of marijuana plants in the states of Indiana and Michigan over a lengthy period of time. Sitting by designation. * Case No. 01 2395/2398/2664/02 1450 Marcus Robinson was sentenced to a term of 130 months and Dennis Miles was sentenced to a term of 121 months. The testimony presented by the government was broken into four separate phases. Her testimony was supported by James Steffen who described his many purchases of marijuana from co conspirator Ralph Kough. The farm was used in the summer of 1995 for the growing and harvesting of massive amounts of 2 Case No. 01 2395/2398/2664/02 1450 marijuana. Called the local Sheriff's office and reported that he noticed unattended horses had escaped from their pasture on the Argyle Road farm and were on the road. 900 plants that the record suggested was consistent with the marijuana stalks that were found in the corn the officers discovered still standing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3257.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. I. BACKGROUND Busby was married to Benny L. The administrative judge held instead that OPM correctly terminated Busby's survivor annuity benefits because Busby remarried before age fifty five and was not married to her first husband for at least thirty years. We have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Board under 28 U.S.C. ง 1295 (a)(9). Her threshold argument is based upon the Board's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2984.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 2 No. 02 2984 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/01-15313.opn.html">HALL V. HEAD (10/25/2002, NO. 01-15313)<BR></A><BR> Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BA7E556D075EA0488256E5A00707C12/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0100n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find no error on petitioner's legal claims and do not have jurisdiction to review his remaining claims. I. Marji is a Jordanian native and citizen who entered the United States in 1988 at age 25. An immigration judge can suspend deportation if the alien meets the following prerequisites: (a) the alien was physically present in the United States for at least seven years preceding the petition. (b) the alien was a person of good moral character during that period. Or child who is a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent resident alien. Marji also sought permission for voluntary departure if his petition for suspension of removal was denied. The IJ concluded that Marji did not have good moral character. There were periods in which he did not have a valid work permit and did not file an income tax report or pay income taxes. If Marji was Marji's deportation proceedings commenced before April 1. The final order of deportation was issued after October 30. Marji's petition was treated as one for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0692519E1E455DD988256EAE00592BBB/$file/0315442.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were also on the briefs. Was also on the briefs. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision holding that Juliet and Piers are not entitled to child's insurance benefits based on the earnings of their deceased father. Gillett Netting argues that the district court erred in holding that Juliet and Piers are not eligible for child's insurance benefits because they are not Netting's children under the Social Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110433.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Last Will and Testament of Waldo DeLoache. As Custodian of the Interests of John Michel Whitehead DeLoachePowers and Russell Whitehead DeLoache Powers under the Last Will and Testament of Waldo DeLoache. Individually as legatee under the Will of Olivia Dubberly Hughes. As Executor of and individually as legatee under the Will of Mary S. The Will of Bruce Dubberly. As beneficiary of the trust under the Will of Marjorie Whitney A. The Will of Joseph Alexander Perkins. The Last Will and Testament of Waldo DeLoache. As Custodian of the Interests of John Michel Whitehead DeLoachePowers and Russell Whitehead DeLoache Powers under the Last Will and Testament of Waldo DeLoache. Individually as legatee under the Will of Olivia Dubberly Hughes. As Executor of and individually as legatee under the Will of Mary S. The Will of Bruce Dubberly. As beneficiary of the trust under the Will of Marjorie Whitney A. The Will of Joseph Alexander Perkins. Circuit Judge: This consolidated appeal arises out of the probate of the will of Waldo DeLoache ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/041365P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sidikhouya was served with a notice to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) charging him with removability. Sidikhouya contends the BIA should have granted his motion to reopen based on his bona fide marriage to a United States citizen. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Because Sidikhouya was served with a notice to appear in 2001. An alien may adjust status based on marriage entered during deportation proceedings if the alien shows the marriage was bona fide. 8 U.S.C. ง 1255(e)(3). An alien who is permitted to depart voluntarily and fails to do so within the specified time period is ineligible for ten years for adjustment of status under ง 1255. Motions to reopen were transformed from a regulatory to a statutory form of relief. He forfeits any motion to reopen he may have filed because he is no longer within the United States. He also forfeits any pending motion to reopen because he has violated his voluntary departure period and thus is no longer eligible to receive the underlying relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5293a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B06D66ECFDD6901E88256E5A00707D03/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2531.man.html">RASH V. RASH (7/27/1998, NO. 97-2531)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that a Florida judgment dissolving his marriage is valid. The property settlement ordered in the New Jersey decree is more favorable to the wife than that provided in the Florida decree.</P> <P> The wife moved to dismiss. Did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the federal courts usually decline review of domestic relations cases over which the state courts traditionally have jurisdiction. Following is the relevant sequence of events:</P> <P> 2/25/94: The husband sued for divorce in state court in Florida.</P> <P> 3/14/94: The wife was served with process in New Jersey.</P> <P> 3/21/94: The wife sued for divorce in state court in New Jersey.</P> <P> 3/22/94: The wife filed in the New Jersey court an emergency application asking that the husband be restrained from proceeding in the Florida divorce action. The wife filed a response alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence.</P> <P> The same day. Counsel for both parties were present and participated.</P> <P> 3/31/94: The New Jersey court found that the husband was subject to the <EM>in personam</EM> jurisdiction of the New Jersey court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2457FDB8B7C15C2688256A9C005962B2/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/98-8763.opn.html">ROSS V. CLAYTON COUNTY (4/26/1999, NO. 98-8763)<BR></A><BR> To Clayton County because none of Ross's constitutional rights were violated. Ross was hired by Clayton County as a correctional officer on a 12 month probationary. Andre Ross was on probation for failure to pay child support. Andre was accused of abducting a woman and raping her at the apartment he shared with Ross. Ross was summoned to meet with Warden Camp and other supervisors. They claim that he was allowed to relate his side of the story at that time. Ross was demoted to a lower ranking position. Written notice of the demotion explaining that it was for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3870.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Westmoreland was indicted on five counts of a six count multi defendant indictment. He was charged with: causing the death of a person through use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Westmoreland was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment on the previous drug conviction and to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on counts 2 6 of the later conviction. Westmoreland was a partner of Richard Abeln ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-4336.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAND (12/31/1998, NO. 97-4336)<BR></A><BR> Appellant Abraham Brand was found guilty of willfully failing to pay a past due support obligation. Arguing that his failure to pay was not willful. That the state court order that formed the basis of his support obligation under the Act is invalid. That he is unable to pay. Three children were born to this union: a girl in 1980. Brand was a successful entrepreneur. Neither Brand nor his lawyer were present at the final hearing. Which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQwMjNfc28ucGRm/04-4023_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A73 045 702 A29 882 583 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the petition for review is DENIED. We will vacate and remand for new findings if the agency's reasoning or its fact finding process was sufficiently flawed. 158 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that affirmance is appropriate. When it can be confidently predicted that the IJ would adhere to the decision were the case 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 remanded). The agency's adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. While Zheng's explanation for this inconsistency is plausible. The IJ's refusal to accept the explanation was not error because no reasonable fact finder would be compelled to credit it. The reason that Zheng does assert for the discrepancyญญthat she is uneducated and used the wrong verbญญwas raised only before this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0310n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the beneficiary of his son's life insurance policy. The plan administrator is Airborne Freight Corporation. Benefits under [the] Plan [are] paid only if the Plan Administrator. Decides in its discretion that the applicant is entitled to them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3235.html">MARYANN A. WOOD V. OPM<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974057.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Purnell was required to report changes in her income and the size of her household. The marriage was a tumultuous one. Five counts of knowingly presenting a false claim to HUD in violation of 18 U.S.C. ง 287. 2 From the time the indictment was returned. Who returned the page but hung up after discovering he was calling a law firm. Three of Purnell's friends testified that they were at her residence during various times and saw no indication that Anderson lived there. He found that this testimony was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ0NjAtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4460-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Deportation proceedings against Nadolo were commenced prior to April 1. The BIA's denial of Nadolo's motion to reopen was issued after October 30. Which we have an independent obligation to examine. Claiming that she was eligible for adjustment of status4 based upon her marriage to a naturalized United States citizen and the INS's approval of her I 130 petition.5 Although the motion was initially rejected as untimely. The BIA denied the motion based on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033408P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs in this consolidated action are: Noreen Maki. The defendant is ALLETE. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs worked for the defendant in the 1950s and 1960s until they were terminated pursuant to company policies which first prohibited married women. These policies were abrogated by the defendant after the plaintiffs were terminated. The plaintiffs were rehired by the defendant in the 1980s. They have all since retired and are collecting pension benefits from the defendant. Stenstrom had not yet received a right to sue letter from the EEOC when she brought this action so her Title VII claims were brought under the MHRA. 2 1 The defendant's pension plan provides benefits based on years of continuous employment. The defendant amended the plan to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052667np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the conviction. His application was approved in June 2001. He was granted conditional permanent resident status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. Two months before his conditional resident status was set to expire. The basis for Hadima's Petition was that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4FC6A1CFE162083788256DA90052FAB8/$file/0156565.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ง 2254. Testified that she acted in self defense because at the time of the killing she feared that her life was in imminent danger. That the use of the terminology </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C965842C2037898088256A72007C01A2/$file/9616799.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking a writ of execution against the Plan for the amount in which Myers was in arrears on his child support payments under the 1981 judgment. This order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCD9B5F747508B6488256A9500778592/$file/0030023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents three questions: (1) whether it is constitutional to prosecute a wife for harboring her fugitive husband or for being an accessory after the fact to his crime. (3) whether an accessory indictment that fails to specify the principal's crime is legally sufficient. Because we hold that the answer to the first two questions is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2182.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant Ana Maria Meda Santos. Were on brief for appellee. Adolfo Magana was convicted by a jury of entering into a sham marriage to evade the immigration laws. His codefendant Ana Maria Meda Santos was convicted of aiding and abetting Magana's crime. 18 U.S.C. Both defendants were also convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. Magana is a native and citizen of El Salvador who came to the United States seeking asylum. He was granted leave to remain in the country on a nonpermanent basis and to work while his application for asylum pended. Magana and Meda Santos were friends who spent a substantial amount of time together. They both were employed by the same company in Portland. As were two other persons involved in relevant events. Magana's legal status in this country was only temporary. If his application for asylum were to be rejected. Magana and Cunningham were married by a justice of the peace at Magana's apartment in the presence of Meda Santos and Ferrante. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-2531.ma2.html">RASH V. RASH (04/30/99, NO. 97-2531)<BR></A><BR> On March 14 the wife was served with process under Fla. Alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence. 1994 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that the husband was subject to the <EM>in personam</EM> jurisdiction of the New Jersey court and restraining him from proceeding <EM>in personam</EM> against the wife in the Florida divorce action and from obtaining relief on any issues regarding distribution of personal and real property. The hearing was not conducted on May 10.</P> <P> On July 8. That the husband should have sole ownership of his Pennsylvania Retirement System pension. Declared that the wife have no form of alimony or support from the husband. Both parties were present with their counsel and testimony was taken.</P> <P> On December 14 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that Florida had inappropriately asserted <EM>in personam</EM> jurisdiction over the wife. That it was the appropriate forum to resolve those issues relating to distribution of property and support.</P> <P> On December 19 the husband filed an answer and counterclaim in the New Jersey case.</P> <P> On June 19. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052927p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAwMzktYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0039-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> George Morgan was admitted to the United States as a non immigrant visitor on July 21. Morgan and Green were each interviewed on April 16. Whether Morgan was right handed or left handed. Were conducted pursuant to the consent decree in Stokes v. Whether there were lamps in their bedroom. Morgan was scheduled to appear for a hearing in New York City on January 14. That motion was granted on December 30. Morgan was scheduled to appear before an IJ in Buffalo on February 12. Morgan then moved for a continuance on the ground that his counsel was unavailable. 2003 was adjudicated. Morgan filed a motion for a continuance his fourth request in less than one year of his voluntary departure hearing because his attorney allegedly was not available. That motion was granted. Morgan's hearing was rescheduled to November 14. That the mere fact that an application was pending did not qualify him for any relief from removal. Morgan argues that the denial of his request for an additional continuance so that Green's I130 application could be adjudicated was an abuse of discretion and violated his right to due process of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAwMzktYWcgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-0039-ag%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> George Morgan was admitted to the United States as a non immigrant visitor on July 21. Morgan and Green were each interviewed on April 16. Whether Morgan was right handed or left handed. Were conducted pursuant to the consent decree in Stokes v. Whether there were lamps in their bedroom. Morgan was scheduled to appear for a hearing in New York City on January 14. That motion was granted on December 30. Morgan was scheduled to appear before an IJ in Buffalo on February 12. Morgan then moved for a continuance on the ground that his counsel was unavailable. 2003 was adjudicated. Morgan filed a motion for a continuance his fourth request in less than one year of his voluntary departure hearing because his attorney allegedly was not available. That motion was granted. Morgan's hearing was rescheduled to November 14. That the mere fact that an application was pending did not qualify him for any relief from removal. Morgan argues that the denial of his request for an additional continuance so that Green's I130 application could be adjudicated was an abuse of discretion and violated his right to due process of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1392.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have consolidated for decision two petitions to review decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying asylum. The petitions reflect the continuing difficulty that the board and the immigration judges are having in giving reasoned explanations for their decisions to deny asylum. He is a citizen of Kazakhstan. There is great enmity between the two groups. In part because of religious differences the Kazakhs are Muslims. The Russians Christian and in part because in the Soviet era the Russians were the top dogs and the roles have now been reversed. The thugs beat him and told him he should leave the country because he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DBEE61A5EDBDFD3D88256E5A00707BAD/$file/9616799.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking a writ of execution against the Plan for the amount in which Myers was in arrears on his child support payments under the 1981 judgment. This order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1396.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives and citizens of Cambodia. They were admitted into the United States on July 13. The petitioners timely appealed the IJ's order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).</P> <P> While the appeal was pending. Ven says she married a Cambodian native who was granted asylum in the United States. Finding that Ven had failed to meet her burden to show the marriage was bona fide. No timely appeal was taken from the BIA's March 25. Were killed. It appears that Ven's husband was killed. The IJ found it is unclear why or by whom. He was a FUNCINPEC member. Who fled Cambodia and was granted asylum in the United States.</P> <P> Petitioners. Protection under the CAT because they have a well founded fear of future persecution due to the continuing persecution of FUNCINPEC members and their supporters by Hun Sen supporters. Exposes her and her daughter to an even greater threat if they are forced to return to Cambodia.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/006108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kelly ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052947np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. We will deny the petition for review. Chen represented that he was traveling under a false passport. That he was seeking asylum from China's family planning policy. He stated that in his village he is permitted to have two children. He cannot legally have a second child. He testified that he was married on May 22. Found that several of his explanations and assertions were not credible. Noted that evidence of his wife's alleged sterilization was not competent. An applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured in the proposed country of deportation. We may not disturb a credibility determination unless no reasonable person would have found the applicant incredible. Although we have occasionally expressed skepticism over the reliability of airport interviews. We have found that they may serve as the basis for an adverse credibility determination when the applicant clearly understood the questions posed and his answers went to the heart of his claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/023332p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We do not address the arguments concerning the summary affirmance procedure. 3 decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the BIA properly affirmed without opinion the IJ's determination that Mulanga failed to satisfy her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. We conclude that: (1) petitioner should have been given an opportunity to provide corroborating documentation of her husband's political affiliation or. (2) the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The following account is based on two sources. The events relating specifically to Mulanga and her family are based on Mulanga's testimony (the credibility of which is disputed). Information about political events and conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is taken from the U.S. Mulanga was born on June 4. Their seven children were born in Kinshasa between August 1978. Mulanga's husband was a member of the opposition party. He was the local person . . . His primary function was to work with the young people and to help them how to function within the party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/046001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was nondischargeable. Seven children were under the age of 18. Judge Kennon found that Gwendolyn was capable of earning net income of approximately $1. 654.60 per month and that Jerry was capable of earning net income of approximately $1. Judge Kennon found that Gwendolyn was entitled to lump sum alimony. That Jerry did not have the ability to pay it. Jerry claims the award of lump sum alimony is not in the nature of support. Was in fact part of the parties' The Honorable Richard D. Found that the debt was nondischargeable. Giving due regard to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.2 We review the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court de novo.3 A bankruptcy court's finding that an award in a dissolution proceeding is in the nature of alimony is a factual finding that we will not disturb unless such finding is clearly erroneous.4 Gourley v. 595 (2nd Cir. 2002) (holding that the reviewing court applies the clearly erroneous standard when an appellant appeals the trial court's determination that a debt is in the nature of support under 11 U.S.C. ง 523(a)(5). 4 3 DISCUSSION This adversary proceeding is a bit unusual for two reasons. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053295np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition and affirm the BIA's order. She had been forced by Chinese authorities to have an abortion in 1999. The IJ stated Qiu's entire application hinged on whether Qiu could credibly show she was subjected to a forced abortion in China in 1999. The IJ found Qiu's contention lacked credibility because her account was inconsistent with the Profile and not supported by sufficient evidence. Because she found Qiu not forthcoming about who had paid to have her smuggled into the United States. Stating there 2 was no evidence either that Qiu would be forbidden from having a second child if deported to China. Or that Qiu and her husband even wanted to have more children. Any such contention would have been unsupported because Qiu only had one child. The BIA found Qiu had failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum because her motion was not accompanied by evidence to support her fear of persecution in China as a result of the birth of children in the United States. The BIA found the Profile did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972531.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On March 14 the wife was served with process under Fla. Alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence. 1994 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that the husband was subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the New Jersey court and restraining him from proceeding in personam against the wife in the Florida divorce action and from obtaining relief on any issues regarding distribution of personal and real property. The hearing was not conducted on May 10. That the husband should have sole ownership of his Pennsylvania Retirement System pension. Declared that the wife have no form of alimony or support from the husband. Both parties were present with their counsel and testimony was taken. That it was the appropriate forum to resolve those issues relating to distribution of property and support. The court divided New Jersey real property and a trailer located in Florida and held the wife was entitled to alimony and half of the husband's social security payments and of his disability pension. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B64EFCFC9161E29988256A1B0060358C/$file/9817122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal. 1266 67 (9th Cir. 1992) (person who claims to be the beneficiary of an ERISA plan has a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. ง 1132(a)(1)).1 1 The interpleader plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972531.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On March 14 the wife was served with process under Fla. Alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence. 1994 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that the husband was subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the New Jersey court and restraining him from proceeding in personam against the wife in the Florida divorce action and from obtaining relief on any issues regarding distribution of personal and real property. The hearing was not conducted on May 10. That the husband should have sole ownership of his Pennsylvania Retirement System pension. Declared that the wife have no form of alimony or support from the husband. Both parties were present with their counsel and testimony was taken. 3 On December 14 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that Florida had inappropriately asserted in personam jurisdiction over the wife. That it was the appropriate forum to resolve those issues relating to distribution of property and support. The court divided New Jersey real property and a trailer located in Florida and held the wife was entitled to alimony and half of the husband's social security payments and of his disability pension. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/95-5274.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. KNOX<BR></A><BR> We hold that the evidence in dispute was properly admissible as non hearsay pursuant to Fed. 472 73 (10th Cir. 1975) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012815P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ashcroft has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States and is substituted as appellee under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 1 Before WOLLMAN. This is an appeal from the district court's3 adverse grant of summary judgment affirming the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of Atmera Gipson's application to have her husband. After Sathekge was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in May of 1994 for overstaying his visa. Deportation proceedings were instituted against him. Seeking to have Sathekge classified as an immediate relative of a United States citizen. After the INS confronted Sathekge with evidence that he was not the person identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F37D428B8113024E8825733A004B6F53/$file/0416087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The panel reasoned that Pallas no longer controlled because it was inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority governing retroactivity principles. Because we conclude that Pallas is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/023842P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald was sentenced to thirty years in prison and fined $2.3 million for operating an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E67E664DE6DAEE5388256DE4000107D8/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F316B7C5749B242D88256E5A00707B2E/$file/9817122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. p. 3651. Is a question that we leave to the district court to decide in the first instance. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Johnson was not entitled to survivor benefits. Changed the law and provides that a former spouse is entitled to a survivor annuity </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-1040.htm">02-1040 -- PATTON V. DENVER POST CORP. -- 04/23/2003<BR></A><BR> Patton sought a declaration in federal court that a state domestic relations order granting her survivor benefits in her former husband's pension plan was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code ง 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0343p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Flaskamp had to serve a four year probationary period before she was eligible for tenure. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTAwNjdfc28ucGRm/06-0067_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A 95 429 259 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0429p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury school's decision was made] religious beliefs. . . . A decision b community in a jury trial is ap 995 F. 672 (Ohio 1994) (holding that federal caselaw interpreting and applying Title VII is generally applicable to cases involving Chapter 4112). This is no different for discrimination claims brought against sectarian schools. For the same reasons that Cline is entitled to pursue her federal discrimination claim before a trier of fact. She is equally entitled to press on with her claim under Ohio's Civil Rights Act. E. We agree with the district court that Cline's contract claims are meritless. The contract itself was for a one year term. Its terms were fulfilled. Although Cline generally alleged that she was unsuccessful in finding work immediately after she was informed of her nonrenewal. Or that she was injured by that reliance. Paul is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church located within the Catholic Diocese of Toledo. Father Willman is Willman </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTIzNTdfc28ucGRm/06-2357_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A76 506 551 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the petition for review is DENIED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0420n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Immigration Judge found that Berishaj had failed to establish that she was a member of a protected class. That she had not shown she was persecuted by the government or by someone whom the government was unwilling or unable to control. Was born in Kosovo on March 18. She was served with a notice to appear before an Immigration Judge (IJ) and show why she should not be removed from the United States for overstaying her visa. The following facts were presented by Berishaj in her application for asylum and her testimony before the IJ. Berishaj also explained that she could not return to Kosovo because the man to whom she was engaged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTQyODdfc28ucGRm/06-4287_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A96 162 530 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is hereby ORDERED. That the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction in part. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAyLTQ0NzRfc28ucGRm/02-4474_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061688P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Mouawad's asylum application was untimely and that he did not meet his burden of proving eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. A. Factual Background Mouawad was the sole witness at the hearing. Mouawad is a Lebanese Christian who grew up during Lebanon's war torn 1980s. Unarmed civilians he believed were members of Hizballah. He believed these men sometimes followed him while he was driving. The military also undertook an investigation into whether Mouawad was giving information to Hizballah and threatened to punish him by extending his mandatory term of service. A neighbor and friend of Mouawad who was engaged in some manner of covert employment. Mouawad immediately feared that the perpetrators were from Hizballah and that his own life might be at risk. He could see there were several men outside. They told her they sought Mouawad because they knew he was Daou's friend. They also said they knew Mouawad was present because his car was parked outside the apartment building. She was seeking annulment of that marriage at the time of Mouawad's hearing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/052084P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\5-7\05-2084 HAFZA HASSAN V. GONZALES OPN 5.1.WPD<BR></A><BR> That if Hassan were returned. Venue was changed to Minnesota. (2) Hassan had undergone FGM but was not entitled to asylum based upon her experience. (3) if Hassan were returned. A denial of asylum is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Underlying factual findings are reviewed for substantial support in the record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-5307a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Paul Hoffman. With him on the brief was Wilma A. She also claims that while he was being tortured and for more than a year and a half after his death. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Because the NSC and State Department officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Emphasizing that defendants have not yet answered Harbury's charges and that her claims have been subject to neither discovery nor cross examination. Bamaca committed suicide and was buried nearby. This was false. Harbury learned from a prisoner who had escaped from a Guatemalan interrogation camp that her husband was alive and being tortured. Discovering that the body there was not his. Saying they were concerned about Bamaca's situation. These officials reassured her they were seriously looking into the matter and told her the Guatemalan Military had informed them that it did not have (and never had) custody of Bamaca. The State Department also reported that it had no information confirming that Bamaca was still alive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1476_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was sought by the police for cohabiting with her boyfriend and that she feared further persecution if forced to return to China. Li arrived at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in March 2001 and was arrested for attempting to enter the United States with a fraudulent passport. Li conceded that she was removable and applied for asylum on account of her political opinion. When she was eighteen. People were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAyLTQ1NjktYWdfc28ucGRm/02-4569-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061688P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 Mouawad's asylum application was untimely and that he did not meet his burden of proving eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. A. Factual Background Mouawad was the sole witness at the hearing. Mouawad is a Lebanese Christian who grew up during Lebanon's war torn 1980s. Unarmed civilians he believed were members of Hizballah. He believed these men sometimes followed him while he was driving. The military also undertook an investigation into whether Mouawad was giving information to Hizballah and threatened to punish him by extending his mandatory term of service. A neighbor and friend of Mouawad who was engaged in some manner of covert employment. Mouawad immediately feared that the perpetrators were from Hizballah and that his own life might be at risk. He could see there were several men outside. They told her they sought Mouawad because they knew he was Daou's friend. They also said they knew Mouawad was present because his car was parked outside the apartment building. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061981P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that State Farm had a duty to defend Baar's alienation of affections claim because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4126461D5FBF92A888256E5A00707D75/$file/9870782.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts or evidence that may entitle the alien to 1 An alien may seek relief from a decision of an Immigration Judge by filing a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. ง 3.23(b)(3). 16504 relief from deportation. Or to show that the alien is newly eligible for relief from deportation. We reaffirm our prior holding that this ninety day filing period is subject to equitable tolling. He was authorized to remain until May 26. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is not to raise new facts. Socop conceded that he was deportable as charged. Socop was represented by an attorney at the deportation hearing. While his asylum appeal to the BIA was pending. He explained that he was withdrawing his appeal because he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTMwMjVfc28ucGRm/05-3025_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062568np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was based on his counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. We will grant the petition and remand the case. 1 and his request for withholding of removal were denied by an Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981456.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Plan is a defined benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-4100.htm">96-4100 -- TAYLOR V. RUPP -- 01/12/1998<BR></A><BR> Was denied discharge in bankruptcy on the basis that he had willfully and fraudulently omitted material information from his statements and schedules. Claiming that Harold's transfers to Julia of the assets at issue here were void or voidable as fraudulent conveyances or. That Harold had equitable interests in them such that the court should impose a constructive or resulting trust. <p> The bankruptcy judge determined that Harold retained a one half equitable interest in the couple's Park City home even though he had conveyed his share of a joint tenancy title to Julia seven years before when he was solvent. That this equitable interest was part of Harold's bankruptcy estate. The judge also determined that the bankruptcy estate was entitled to a money judgment against Julia for $5. The district court summarily affirmed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-4100a.htm">96-4100A -- TAYLOR V. RUPP -- 01/12/1998<BR></A><BR> For Appellant</a>. <p> A copy of the corrected cover page is attached for your convenience. <p> Very truly yours. Was denied discharge in bankruptcy on the basis that he had willfully and fraudulently omitted material information from his statements and schedules. Claiming that Harold's transfers to Julia of the assets at issue here were void or voidable as fraudulent conveyances or. That Harold had equitable interests in them such that the court should impose a constructive or resulting trust. <p> The bankruptcy judge determined that Harold retained a one half equitable interest in the couple's Park City home even though he had conveyed his share of a joint tenancy title to Julia seven years before when he was solvent. That this equitable interest was part of Harold's bankruptcy estate. The judge also determined that the bankruptcy estate was entitled to a money judgment against Julia for $5. The district court summarily affirmed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3347.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Wade Plunkett. The Court Order was submitted to OPM which notified Snyder that the order was suitable for processing and would provide her with (1) an apportionment benefit payable on Ruff's retirement. Ruff was an employee of both federal and state governments during the entire marriage. Although OPM had previously notified Snyder that the Court Order was sufficient to provide her with a survivor annuity. The Board's administrative judge found that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F7D4297CCF145E188256E5A00707AB0/$file/9817122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal. 1266 67 (9th Cir. 1992) (person who claims to be the beneficiary of an ERISA plan has a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. ง 1132(a)(1)).1 1 The interpleader plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-2531.ma2.html">RASH V. RASH (04/30/99, NO. 97-2531)<BR></A><BR> On March 14 the wife was served with process under Fla. Alleging that the parties' residence was New Jersey and denying Florida residence. 1994 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that the husband was subject to the <EM>in personam</EM> jurisdiction of the New Jersey court and restraining him from proceeding <EM>in personam</EM> against the wife in the Florida divorce action and from obtaining relief on any issues regarding distribution of personal and real property. The hearing was not conducted on May 10.</P> <P> On July 8. That the husband should have sole ownership of his Pennsylvania Retirement System pension. Declared that the wife have no form of alimony or support from the husband. Both parties were present with their counsel and testimony was taken.</P> <P> On December 14 the New Jersey court entered an order finding that Florida had inappropriately asserted <EM>in personam</EM> jurisdiction over the wife. That it was the appropriate forum to resolve those issues relating to distribution of property and support.</P> <P> On December 19 the husband filed an answer and counterclaim in the New Jersey case.</P> <P> On June 19. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-7143.htm">99-7143 -- SMITH V. MASSEY -- 12/19/2000<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The following is a summary of the underlying facts. Allegedly had made threats to have him killed. <p> As the group drove away from the motel. Present at the house were Smith and his wife Robyn. Five of these gunshot wounds were fatal. The knife wound was also potentially fatal. <p> <u>Smith v. 483 U.S. 1033 (1987). <p> Smith and her son Greg were charged in the District Court of Sequoyah County. The cases against Smith and her son were severed for purposes of trial. The jury found the existence of two aggravating factors: (1) the murder was especially heinous. Smith was formally sentenced by the state district court on December 29. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial of post conviction relief was affirmed by the OCCA. <u>Smith v. The magistrate court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Smith was advised by trial counsel of a potential conflict of interest arising out of counsel's representation of both Smith and her son and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/053304P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board found that she was not credible. Found that her application was frivolous. She was authorized to stay in the United States through October 5. She then declared and swore that contents of the application were true. The petitioner did not amend several The record in this case is a mix of admittedly false statements. Statements that an immigration judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D62F18E454F204288256E5A00707C07/$file/0030023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents three questions: (1) whether it is constitutional to prosecute a wife for harboring her fugitive husband or for being an accessory after the fact to his crime. (3) whether an accessory indictment that fails to specify the principal's crime is legally sufficient. Because we hold that the answer to the first two questions is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9610.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges. (1) The government correctly points out in its brief that the Attorney General is the only proper respondent in this case under 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(3)(a). The government's motion is granted. <hr> McCONNELL. This case turns upon the application of two statutes.(1) The first statute is 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5084.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue in this case is whether an Oklahoma divorce court's interlocutory (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> protective orders requiring a husband. We have jurisdiction. I The facts are undisputed and ably set out in Simpson II. TDW determined the parties' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTYwODBfc28ucGRm/04-6080_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A77 899 961 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 petition for review is GRANTED. The BIA's order is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Show that this evidence was reasonably available to the applicant. (b) show that the documentation at issue was reasonably available to the 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 petitioner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/051781U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J. Michael McConnell appeals the district court's1 dismissal of his complaint seeking a federal tax refund arising from his marital status and seeking a declaration that his 1971 Minnesota same sex marriage is lawful. 598 (1948) (each year is origin of new liability and of separate cause of action. Judgment on merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving same claim and same tax year). 1038 (8th Cir. 2006) (collateral estoppel applies under Minnesota law if (1) issue was identical to one in prior adjudication. (2) there was final judgment on merits. (3) estopped party was party or in privity with party to prior adjudication. (4) estopped party was given full and fair opportunity to be heard on adjudicated issue. Focus on whether injustice will be worked on party against whom estoppel is urged). The issue in this case is the same one that McConnell previously litigated in Baker v. The Minnesota Supreme Court clearly stated that same sex marriage is prohibited in Minnesota and that this prohibition does not offend the United States Constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-10798.ma2.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/052803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phillips Modern Ag Company is owned and operated by Scott Phillips. Whose wife Lori is also involved with the company. Tenge was an at will employee. Scott said that he was always satisfied with her work performance and that she never failed to perform an assigned task. Lori began to believe that Scott and Tenge were involved in a romantic relationship. She grew concerned that Tenge was attempting to seduce Scott. Tenge and her husband were at a bar with Lori. They were at a concert with their spouses. That was just a quick instant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2530_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Boctor testified at his immigration hearing that he was repeatedly threatened with beheading and twice was violently attacked and beaten for refusing to disclose the whereabouts of a fellow Coptic Christian and his wife. Because the agency's determination that Boctor was not persecuted because of his religion is not supported by substantial evidence. I. Background Boctor was born in Cairo. Boctor conceded removability and an IJ heard the merits of Boctor's claims at a hearing at which Boctor was the only witness. Boctor is a member of the Coptic Orthodox Christian Church and is readily identifiable as a Copt because of his first name (John or Yohanna) and a crucifix tattoo on his right wrist. As was customary for children in his Coptic community in Egypt. Boctor's efforts were unsuccessful. Boctor believed the callers were part of the same group of Muslim extremists that had been menacing the Mousas. Boctor was attacked by three men. Beating them and demanding to know where the Mousas were hiding. Boctor left Egypt for the United States. 4 No. 05 2530 Boctor testified that he fears returning to Egypt because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024431np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before us is whether it was appropriate for the BIA to affirm the IJ's decision without opinion in this case. We will deny De Reyes' petition. I. Because the facts are known to the parties. After the two were divorced. De Reyes applied to have her conditional status removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(c)(4)(B). If </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Parson is the widow of George Parson. Parson was unmarried and did not elect a survivor annuity benefit. Parson were married on July 10. OPM denied the application on the ground that there was no indication in its records that Mr. OPM stated again that there was no indication in its records that Mr. The administrative judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ3MTVfc28ucGRm/04-4715_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-5307b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Paul Hoffman. With him on the brief was Wilma A. She also claims that while he was being tortured and for more than a year and a half after his death. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the NSC and State Department officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Emphasizing that defendants have not yet answered Harbury's charges and that her claims have been subject to neither discovery nor cross examination. Bamaca committed suicide and was buried nearby. This was false. Harbury learned from a prisoner who had escaped from a Guatemalan interrogation camp that her husband was alive and being tortured. Discovering that the body there was not his. Saying they were concerned about Bamaca's situation. These officials reassured her they were seriously looking into the matter and told her the Guatemalan Military had informed them that it did not have (and never had) custody of Bamaca. The State Department also reported that it had no information confirming that Bamaca was still alive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041311.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Such motions are especially disfavored </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6134.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was denied and subsequently affirmed by the OCCA. Relief was denied on all grounds on March 25. Boltz: that the evidence was insufficient to establish the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM3MDJfc28ucGRm/04-3702_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A77 797 421 A77 297 418 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. Is automatically substituted for John Ashcroft. Who was originally named as the respondent in this case. 1 decision of the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033150np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition for review. The INS alleged that Seegobin was removable from the United States because he became a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis on February 22. His application to remove the conditional nature of the permanent residence was denied by the District Director on December 21. Petitioner admitted those facts but asserted that he was entitled to a review of his The INA was amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Seegobin was removed from the United States on August 28. Although Petitioner remarks in his brief that the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen was consolidated for review together with review of the BIA's order of removal. There is no indication that Seegobin in fact petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen. As the BIA's denial of Seegobin's motion to reopen was subject to independent review. It was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033211p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For a period of five years.1 A proper showing of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0315.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 16 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0735n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Abdalla is a native and citizen of Egypt who identifies himself as a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Abdalla's application was accompanied by a notarized affidavit signed by Abdalla describing the bases of his requests for relief. Abdalla was charged with being removable under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the INA. A removal hearing was held on October 22. Abdalla was unable to produce an original version of his wife's letter. There were two 2 No. 05 4266 Abdalla v. The IJ also noted that in the letter Abdalla's wife stated she was forced from their home and was now living with her parents. This is inconsistent with Abdalla's testimony that she had already been living with her parents after the family's home was destroyed in a prior attack on July 9. Finding that the petition was untimely because Abdalla failed to file his petition within one year of entry into the United States. The IJ concluded that Abdalla's untimely filing was not excused by extraordinary circumstances or changed country conditions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-20776.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Davis contends: (1) the errors in the Adminsitrative Law Judge's (ALJ) written findings were not harmless. (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The claimed common law marriage is at issue.). Our review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/043938P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Munson alleged that he was granted parole in June 2000 with the stipulation that he complete the RSVP. Was removed from it in September 2001. Munson was the only witness and testified as follows. Munson was convicted and told him that he had to admit to everything in the report or he would not be permitted to complete the RSVP. He was placed on extra work detail. The record shows this prayer was modeled on the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Twelve Steps and repeatedly referred to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034799np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005) This case was originally submitted to the three judge panel of Roth. It was unnecessary to assign a third judge. We will deny her petition. Was intercepted in Miami. Alleging Lin was an arriving alien who attempted to gain entry into the United States by using a fraudulent passport. Which was granted on February 14. She later admitted that there was no forced marriage and that she lied because the smuggler who arranged for her passage to the United States told her to tell that story. Lin alleged that she was subject to persecution in China because she was a parishioner at a governmentprohibited unofficial Christian church. Lin stated that her involvement in the unofficial Christian church was the basis for the local police arresting her. She was not present. Lin indicated that she was a Christian. Although she was never baptized. She stated at one point that her family members were Christians too. Later indicated that her father and his side of the family were Buddhist. 484 (3d Cir. 2001)).1 In cases where the IJ's holding is based on an adverse credibility determination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI2OTItYWdfc28ucGRm/04-2692-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov2000/983558.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Elizabeth Lake is mentally retarded. She was permanently sterilized. Against the hospital where it was 2 performed. Although we agree with the District Court's decision that the Lakes' state claims are time barred by Pennsylvania's two year statute of limitations for personal injury suits. We do not agree with its conclusion that the federal civil rights claims are also untimely. Given our earlier decision that the mentally retar ded are a protected class for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. We must determine whether federal tolling doctrine will permit Elizabeth Lake to escape the bar of the statute of limitations on her federal claims. We will remand this case to the District Court to make this determination in further pr oceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Facts Plaintiff appellant Elizabeth Arnold Lake was born in Ventura. Until she was twelve. Elizabeth was taken to the hospital by her father and step mother. Despite the fact that Elizabeth was mentally retarded and allegedly illiterate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTEzOTJfc28ucGRm/04-1392_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/023961p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ง 462 was repealed prior to the date on which she filed her petition. We will reverse and remand. Croix USVI 00841 1847 Attorney for Appellant Tyler was born on September 28. Who was legally married to Heinrich Nielsen. Tyler alleges that her natural father was in fact Francis. Tyler first became aware that Francis was her biological father at the age of seven in 1954. While others were subsequent. 1 Tyler alleges that she enjoyed an open and loving father/daughter relationship with Francis. Francis promised to make changes to his bank account so that Marcus Tyler would be able to attend college and so that Tyler would not have to struggle financially. Informed Tyler that his father told him that she was his sister. Seeking a decree that Tyler is the legal daughter of Francis. 2 Louis Ar mstr ong. The petition is ambiguous as to whether Francis spoke to these other individuals after he was married (which would have therefore triggered the spousal consent requirement of 16 V.I.C. ง 462. Discussed infra) or after he was no longer married (because he was a widower. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026548.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His longtime girlfriend Beverly Monroe was convicted of his murder. Statements suggesting that Burde may have been suicidal. Challenging the court's conclusion that she procedurally defaulted certain aspects of her Brady claim.2 Because the Brady evidence3 on which the court relied is sufficient to warrant its award of habeas corpus relief. The district court decided that this adjudication was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0887920540D4B95A88256A47005A6F89/$file/9817122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. p. 3651. Is a question that we leave to the district court to decide in the first instance. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041893np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thorne McCarty and appellant Mary Lynne Robertson were married in the Republic of Fiji. McCarty stated that his and Robertson's marriage was null and void because the parties failed to understand the tax consequences of their marriage. The change in filing status resulted in tax liability that was $4. The Registrar General of Fiji responded to McCarty's letter and explained that McCarty's marriage to Robertson was legal under Fiji law. The reason given by the IRS for the disallowance was that McCarty could not change his filing status from joint to separate. The IRS further explained that McCarty's refund claim was denied because he did not prove that he was not legally married when he filed a joint tax return for 1997. McCarty was not satisfied with the IRS's explanations for the denial of his refund claim. 1 It appears that only McCarty filed a refund claim for the 1997 tax year. 2 In October 2007. The gravamen of the complaint was that the IRS violated section 3505 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08C2E9937236E370882572BF0058795F/$file/0555211.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was also on the brief. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the children of Dimitris and Yvette Papakosmas were habitual residents of Greece within PAPAKOSMAS v. Dimitris and Yvette Papakosmas were married in Las Vegas. The couple have two children together. Both children were born in Los Angeles. Never learning of the other sale until the family was in Greece. Although she contends that such sale was unrelated to the move but instead a result of the dog's behavior problems. Dimitris contends that Yvette's trip was to deal with a bounced check and to return a passport to her son from a previous marriage. Was also in Greece. Denies that she was his mistress. Yvette's wrist was cut and she was hospitalized. That Yvette's wound was selfinflicted. After Yvette was released from the hospital. Therefore determined that there was no shared. Because the court determined that Dimitris had failed to meet his burden of proving that Greece is the children's habitual residence. Which is stayed pending the outcome of these proceedings. 1 4252 PAPAKOSMAS v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042415p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF04A72F7D94E56F88256B18007E1ABA/$file/9870782.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts or evidence that may entitle the alien to 1 An alien may seek relief from a decision of an Immigration Judge by filing a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. ง 3.23(b)(3). 16504 relief from deportation. Or to show that the alien is newly eligible for relief from deportation. We reaffirm our prior holding that this ninety day filing period is subject to equitable tolling. He was authorized to remain until May 26. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is not to raise new facts. Socop conceded that he was deportable as charged. Socop was represented by an attorney at the deportation hearing. While his asylum appeal to the BIA was pending. He explained that he was withdrawing his appeal because he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042577np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that there is substantial evidence to support the IJ's and the BIA's decisions and accordingly deny Gao's petition. We will recount only the essential facts. He concedes that he is removable under Section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Gao is married and has two children. Though his wife Shu Fang Lin is also a Chinese national in the United States illegally. Are American citizens. Gao claims that if he is removed from the United States and returned to China. He and his family will be subject to China's coercive family planning policies and possibly fined or jailed. Has been a victim of a past persecution in the form of her having been forced to have an abortion in 1999 and 2) that should they be forced to return to China. Her application was denied. The IJ determined that there was no evidence Lin was once forced to have an abortion in China or that Gao and Lin were likely to face persecution if deported. The evidence of credibility must be so strongly in his favor that this Court concludes there is simply no way a competent adjudicator could have determined that he and his wife lacked credibility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-9009.htm">02-9009 -- JONSON V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 12/30/2003<BR></A><BR> Relief from the joint and several liability that generally follows from filing a joint income tax return may be available to a spouse who is no longer married to or is legally separated from the culpable spouse. Barbara was happily married to David Jonson at the time of her death. Claiming that Barbara was no longer married to David and had not been living with him for the year prior to the election. We agree with the Tax Court that the Estate is not entitled to relief under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9547.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Awa Niang is a victim of female genital mutilation (FGM). <hr> was working in the United States without permission of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (2) on the ground that she was likely to be tortured if returned to Senegal. Much less explained why it was rejected. She was born into the Tukulor Fulani tribe in Senegal in 1970. Her family is Muslim and believes in rigid adherence to certain gender roles and expectations. There was a strict separation between the men and women in her household. Niang was born she was promised in marriage to her cousin Daud. Because she was considered married to Daud. She was not allowed to date other men. Although most Tukulor Fulani girls were subjected to FGM and consummated their marriages when they were 10 to 12 years old. Its responsibilities were divided among three distinct agencies formed within the new Department of Homeland Security. Niang challenges in this appeal were taken prior to this reorganization. We will refer to the relevant government agency as the INS. (2) The Convention Against Torture is formally referred to as The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024587u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041115P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This contention is without merit. He was not eligible for adjustment of status under ง 1255(i) because an immigrant visa was not immediately available to him. Counsel advised the IJ that Grass's spouse had filed a Form I 130 visa petition that was still pending. Counsel advised that the Form I 130 application was still pending. Congress provided in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) that we have no 2 jurisdiction to review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQyMDJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-4202_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Relief under the Convention Against Torture. petitioner's asylum application was untimely. We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SACK. The petitioner was referred to as Porras. During the course of his administrative proceedings. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whichever is later. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQyMDJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-4202_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Relief under the Convention Against Torture. petitioner's asylum application was untimely. We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SACK. The petitioner was referred to as Porras. During the course of his administrative proceedings. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whichever is later. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQyMDIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-4202%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Relief under the Convention Against Torture. asylum application was untimely. We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SACK. Whichever is The petitioner was referred to as Porras. Porras's asylum application was denied by an Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQxMTAwX29wbi5wZGY=/03-41100_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005) United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as respondent. We find that the IJ's denial of petitioner's claim of past persecution in the form of his wife's forced abortion and sterilization was not supported by substantial evidence. BACKGROUND Chen's Entry and Claim Petitioner is a 29 year old male native and citizen of China. He was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings on August 24. His wife was ordered to submit to intra uterine device (IUD) insertion. Was taken by force to a hospital at which an IUD was inserted. His wife was arrested and taken by force to a hospital and made to have an abortion. Chen's wife was arrested and taken by force to a hospital to have an IUD inserted. (9) Chen fears that if returned to China he will be arrested and imprisoned. Was born on December 3. Stating that he was born on December 3. Stating that they were qualified for marriage and would be allowed to register. Was born on September 22. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-5000.htm">98-5000 -- STEWART V. U.S. TRUSTEE -- 04/22/1999<BR></A><BR> 707(b) is constitutional. <em>In re Stewart</em>. 707(b) is not void for vagueness and does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The monetary consequences of his entering a fellowship are appreciable. Perinatology graduate would have ranged from $100. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-9031.htm">00-9031 -- LOVEJOY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 06/18/2002<BR></A><BR> Lovejoy appeals the tax court's determination that certain support payments he made to his ex spouse during divorce proceedings were not deductible under the Internal Revenue Code. The payments were unallocated. Meaning there was no designation as to whether they applied to child support (which is not deductible) or spousal maintenance (also known as alimony. Which is deductible). This case turns on whether Lovejoy's obligation to make these payments would have terminated automatically had his spouse died. They qualify as deductible alimony only if they would have so terminated. We conclude that Lovejoy has not met his burden of showing that the payments are deductible. We therefore AFFIRM the tax court. <p> <center>* * * </center> <p> We have jurisdiction to review the tax court's decision under I.R.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1845B4A48AADBA1D88256D63007AEC0D/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053571np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While his asylum application was still pending. Lin was charged with being deportable for entering the country without inspection. Claimed he was entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. Citing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5307b.html">JENNIFER K. HARBURY V. JOHN M. DEUTCH<BR></A><BR> With her </p> <p>on the briefs were Paul Hoffman. With him on the brief was Wilma A. </p> <p>Lewis. She also </p> <p>claims that while he was being tortured and for more than a </p> <p>year and a half after his death. Defendants were entitled to qualified </p> <p>immunity. Because </p> <p>the NSC and State Department officials are not entitled to </p> <p>qualified immunity on this claim. Emphasizing that </p> <p>defendants have not yet answered Harbury's charges and </p> <p>that her claims have been subject to neither discovery nor </p> <p>cross examination. Bamaca </p> <p>committed suicide and was buried nearby. This was false. </p> <p>In fact. </p> <p>Harbury learned from a prisoner who had escaped from a </p> <p>Guatemalan interrogation camp that her husband was alive </p> <p>and being tortured. Discovering that the body there was not </p> <p>his. </p> <p>Harbury met repeatedly with State Department officials. </p> <p>Saying they were concerned about Bamaca's situation. These </p> <p>officials reassured her they were seriously looking into the </p> <p>matter and told her the Guatemalan Military had informed </p> <p>them that it did not have (and never had) custody of Bamaca.</p> <p> . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001755.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that ง 241(a)(5) does not have a retroactive effect on Velasquez Gabriel and thus affirm reinstatement of the prior order deporting him. He was finally removed from the United States on October 19. The prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. The alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter. Finding Velasquez Gabriel did not have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022201P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board also affirmed the Immigration Judge's finding that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA ง 240A. The latter finding was based on a determination that the petitioner could not demonstrate ten years' continuous physical presence in the United States and that his deportation would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to any qualifying person. The petitioner's administrative remedies concerning the motion to reopen are not exhausted. This court has not yet decided whether the exhaustion requirements of 8 U.S.C. ง 1252 are jurisdictional in nature. 825 (8th Cir. 2002) (leaving open the question of whether ง 1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional). Assuming we do have jurisdiction. That motion was denied on June 20. As was the petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration. The court was informed that the petitioner had since been removed pursuant to the Board's final order. 2 2 requirements set forth in the statute should be disregarded in his case. 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(b)(9). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051668np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree and will grant the petition. 2 I. Removal proceedings were commenced against Li in 1996. A hearing on the application was held in July 1996. Li was the sole witness. His wife was abducted by Chinese officials and sterilized. Li's responses were vague. Li replied: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052266np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition. The Board found it had no jurisdiction because Singh should have filed with the Immigration Court. Noting that he was married to a United States citizen. Noting that Singh's motion to reopen was untimely. Singh argued that he had not received notice of the 1998 hearing and that he was married to a U.S. citizen. He argued only that he was eligible for asylum from India. Singh argued that (a) he was not provided with proper notice of the 1998 hearing. (b) he was entitled to adjust his status based on a bona fide marriage to a United States citizen. (c) he was severely tortured and beaten by Indian police and would be killed by Indian police if he were to be removed to India. He attached a form showing that he was scheduled for an adjustment of status interview. Singh timely petitioned for review.2 The decision to deny a motion to reopen is within the Board's discretion. There is no indication that Singh was ever granted voluntary departure. Which precludes various forms of relief including adjustment of status to those who have been ordered removed in absentia for a period of ten years. 2 1 This Court denied his motion for a stay of removal on May 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/024144P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) she qualifies for relief under the CAT because it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to China. The following is a summary of her affidavit. Upon which the IJ's decision was substantially based. Lau was born in China on July 27. Both of whom are United States citizens. Was no longer supporting the family. Lau was required to go back to work. Lau was classified as a temporary resident and. Was only eligible for temporary jobs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is now the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security. 2 1 because her children were American citizens. She was required to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-10798.ma2.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.REH.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code ง 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional. 2275 n.6 (1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/478E894E11AEF55088257296000F0E47/$file/0457119.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Our answer is No. Incalza was promoted to manager of Fendi's Beverly Hills store. There was considerable evidence. Did not like him and would have liked to replace him. Because the company was now French owned. The E 1 visas issued to Italian nationals were no longer valid. He also informed Fendi that H1 B visas were probably available to both Graziani and Incalza. He told the company that Graziani and Incalza were essentially in the same situation. Although he thought that Graziani might have a slightly easier time obtaining an H1 B visa because he had some post secondary education and had previously received an H1 B visa. Lerner was unaware at the time that Incalza also had two years of postsecondary education. Graziani was granted an H1 B visa. He explained that he was planning to marry his fianc้e. That a leave of absence was not an option. Asking that it give him back his former job once his visa issue was resolved. Incalza filed an action in California Superior Court claiming that he was wrongfully terminated 1) in violation of an implied contract that he would be fired only for good cause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0053p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062483p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge This is a battle for William Knapp's estate. It is in federal court because he kept much of his wealth in employee benefit trusts that were subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062220np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the Petition. I. The parties are familiar with the facts and proceedings before the BIA and the IJ. So we will only briefly revisit them here. The BIA denied the motion to remand for lack of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3053.html">JOHN MORAN V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1380.html">FERGUSON BEAUREGARD/LOGIC CONTROLS V. MEGA SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR> Argued for both plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief for plaintiff appellant Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls was <u>T. Were <u>Gerald L. (3) the district court s conclusion that Bartley was not personally liable for inducing Mega to infringe the 991 patent and<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>U.S. Line height:200%'>BACKGROUND</p> <h1>Overview of the Technology</h1> <p class=MsoBodyText2>The patents in this case concern control systems and related methods used in the production of petroleum products from a well.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>While some wells are capable of producing (or outpouring) liquid petroleum products under naturally induced reservoir pressures. It is more common for wells to require an artificial lift mechanism to be productive.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> 991 patent. Ll. 7 11.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>One such artificial lift system repetitively causes pressure to build by first closing in the well while it is subject to the inflow of liquids.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><st1:State><st1:place><u>Id.</u></st1:place></st1:State> at ll. 14 18.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>After the proper combination of pressure and liquid develops. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054847np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asaf was charged as removable for overstaying his admission period. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. We will reverse the BIA's decision only if it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A154BC3CDF6910A88256FFE0082116B/$file/0372028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Valencia was convicted of felony1 unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 18. Who was more than three years younger than he. Our jurisdiction is controlled by 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. Valencia also argued that he should have been allowed to apply for an adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. We will not consider the merits of this argument. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. The imposition of his sentence was suspended. He was placed on five years probation. It was charged as a felony. 1 VALENCIA v. GONZALES 5189 Valencia was charged in the notice to appear with being removable as an aggravated felon for committing sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. ง 1101(a)(43)(A). The cases deciding whether a violation of California Penal Code ง 261.5(c) is an aggravated felony usually decide the case by evaluating whether it constitutes sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 8 U.S.C. ง 1101(a)(43)(A).2 But here. 1149 (9th Cir. 2003) (conviction under Virginia law for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054574np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053992np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny his petition. He subsequently admitted that he was actually a citizen of Nigeria. Olasunkanmi was charged as inadmissible for willfully misrepresenting his identity when he applied for admission and for not having valid entry documents. The BIA found that Olasunkanmi had not established changed circumstances in Nigeria and his motion was untimely. Olasunkanmi filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ง 2241 in the District Court which was converted to a petition for review and transferred to this Court pursuant to the REAL ID Act. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252. The details of his asylum claim are well known to the parties. He was abducted by a vigilante group. Olasunkanmi argues that his request for asylum should have been granted and that the IJ denied him due process by deviating from the applicable law. Such a determination is a factual finding subject to review under the substantial evidence standard. The credibility finding must be grounded in the record and based on inconsistencies or improbabilities which are crucial to the claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053782p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court properly held that it was foreclosed by the doctrine of issue preclusion from making an independent determination whether appellee Greenway Center. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053020np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on the IJ's determination that Ugbome's story was not credible and was not sufficiently corroborated. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a)(1). We will grant the petition for review. I. Ugbome is a thirty eight year old native and citizen of Nigeria. Her asylum claim is based upon persecution she claims to have suffered as a result of her husband's political activism and subsequent disappearance. Her asylum hearing was held on October 20. Ugbome testified that her husband was invariably arrested during or after the protests. Her husband was detained for about a week after each protest and would return home with a swollen face and bruises from beatings. Ugbome stated that she believed they would have physically hurt her if not for the presence of her daughter (who died due to a congenital heart defect before Ugbome came to the United States). Ugbome left the Delta region in May 2004 because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-7041.html">JONES V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052895np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will grant the petition. He was placed into removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. ง 1229a. On alternative grounds that it was untimely filed and that it failed to demonstrate reconsideration was warranted. Rezhdo's application is based on his homosexual relationship with Pellum Berberi. Whose brother Genc Berberi was a bodyguard for former Albanian Prime Minster Bashkim Fino. Pellum Berberi was fatally shot in their apartment. The IJ found it incredible that a person would wait in a public square across from his apartment if he were afraid of being murdered in that apartment.1 Third was Rezhdo's claim that Genc Berberi had asked Rezhdo's family permission to kill Rezhdo while Rezhdo was in Italy. The IJ found Rezhdo's demeanor demonstrated he was lying. The IJ noted he was sweating profusely and appeared extremely nervous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052686np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Singh filed the motion that is the subject of this appeal on March 17. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a). Kulvir Singh is a twenty nine year old native of the Punjab region of India. Singh was served with a Notice to Appear on July 14. Singh's asylum claim was based on his alleged membership in the All India Sikh 2 Student Federation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052645np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a thirty four year old native and citizen of China who entered the United States via Mexico without inspection. His parents were Catholic. Although Chen was not baptized in childhood because of a government ban on religious activities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/282E5BB838EF83458825733800727415/$file/0575850.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Petitioner Juan Elias Estrada Espinoza is a native and citizen of Mexico. Estrada Espinoza was 20 years old and Arredondo was either 15 or 16 years old. EstradaEspinoza claims that Arredondo and her friends told him she was 18 at the time of their meeting. Estrada Espinoza was convicted on four counts. It is unclear from the record how he pled or whether there was a trial. As that term is defined in 8 U.S.C. ง 1101(a)(43)(A). Which found that ง 261.5(c) was a crime of violence and hence an aggravated felony. (The IJ recognized that Estrada Espinoza was being removed for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051955p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kukafka was indicted by a New Jersey Grand Jury for willful failure to pay his support obligation in violation of the federal Child Support Recovery Act. Kukafka was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison and $145. Kukafka's primary challenge is that. We reject these contentions and will affirm the judgment of conviction. I. Background Ira Kukafka is a trained electrical engineer. The couple have four children. Two of his children were diagnosed with serious illnesses one with retinal blastoma resulting in the loss of an eye. The year this action was commenced. During the period he was in default. Kukafka was living with his mother and had no rent or basic living expenses. His only employment was one week of work in December 2000. Kukafka was also diagnosed with depression and diabetes. Every payment Kukafka made was pursuant to court order following contempt proceedings in Florida.1 These payments were the minimum amount needed to avoid being sent to jail for ninety days. Among other things: that he should not have to pay child support. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051796np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. We will deny the petition for review and affirm the Board's order. Conceding she was subject to removal. The IJ found Zheng was not credible and accordingly denied her applications for relief and granted her application for voluntary departure. Zheng alleges she became pregnant in China in 1999 when she was 20 years old and when her boyfriend was 22. That they were denied a marriage certificate because of their ages. She contends she was then forced by local officials to abort her pregnancy because she was unwed. Consulate in China that concluded the abortion certificate was fabricated. The IJ found Zheng was not credible and her story was implausible. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal from the Board under sections 242(b)(2) and (d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Are reviewed for substantial evidence. The Attorney General may grant asylum to a person who is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051555p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Inc. is a California corporation owned and operated by Robert Zicari and Janet Romano.1 Extreme Associates maintained a website through which it engaged in the business of producing. The Inspectors found that the website was divided into two sections. Members were required to register and to pay $89.95 to gain access to the website for ninety days. The first count was a conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. ง 371 3 charging For purposes of the motion to dismiss in the District Court. Extreme Associates stipulated that the material available on its website is legally obscene. 3 2 18 U.S.C. ง 371 provides in pertinent part: 4 Extreme Associates with conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. งง If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States. From such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service . . . any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful ญ [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051375np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the IJ's oral decision is supported by substantial evidence. Zheng is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. He was detained and. Zheng was placed in removal proceedings and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on February 19. Were arrested by family planning officials in March 2003 because China's family planning laws forbid cohabitation before marriage. Zheng was ordered to report to the office every day. Zheng was the only witness at the hearing and. That family planning officers hit him in the face while he was detained. The IJ concluded that Zheng's claim was not credible for a number of reasons. If Zheng was truly in need of protection from persecution. Insofar as the Country Report established that (1) there was no provision in China's family planning laws that would allow the arrest and detention of an unmarried. (2) Chinese citizens who were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043832p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the repeal of suspension of deportation under the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ง 244(a) has an impermissible retroactive effect on aliens like him who 2 pled guilty to a deportable offense and who would have been eligible for suspension of deportation relief but for the repeal. Was authorized to stay in this country only until October 10. He was sentenced to five years probation. Which was approved on August 14. Hernandez's adjustment of status application was denied and a Notice to Appear was issued on June 21. Is now called the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The IJ ruled that Hernandez was ineligible for relief on both grounds because of his 1984 New York conviction. The IJ ruled that the 1984 New York conviction was for Hernandez. A hearing was held and. The IJ determined that Hernandez was ineligible for the relief he sought. Who was not in INS custody. A petition for review is now the sole and exclusive means of judicial review for all orders of removal except those issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1225(b)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E804B180CA09FAC8825734C0058AAF1/$file/0574930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA concluded that the Hes' motion did not fall within any exception to the regulatory bar against motions to reopen that are untimely or successive. Were married in the Fujian province on January 6. He was several months pregnant with the couple's first child. He did not have an intrauterine device inserted. Though neither was actually sterilized. There appear to have been no administrative proceedings initiated by or against Mr. He until he was served with a Notice to Appear. He The denial of a motion to reopen is a final administrative decision subject to judicial review in the court of appeals. He was already pregnant. 3 During this time. He was released. She was served with a Notice to Appear on March 4. The merits of the Hes' immigration proceedings were given priority because Mrs. He was pregnant with her second child. While their initial petition for review was pending on appeal to our court. The decision of the BIA should be left undisturbed unless it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1369a.html">NEW VALLEY CORP. V. GILLIAM, DORETHA<BR></A><BR> Dobbs argued the cause and was on the brief </P> <P>for petitioner New Valley Corporation.</P> <P> . Woodall argued the cause and was on the brief for </P> <P>respondent Doretha Gilliam. The LHWCA </P> <P>was made applicable to the District of Columbia by the 1928 </P> <P>District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act. </P> <P>holding that legal marriage alone is insufficient to confer </P> <P>eligibility for survivor benefits. Courts must examine the facts of the relationship to </P> <P>determine if there </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033898np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His application was grounded on claims of persecution based on his religion (Hinduism) and minority status as an Indonesian man married to an ethnically Chinese woman. He was targeted and 2 apprehended by a mob of Indonesians which attacked shop owners and residents. Sumadatha was not compelled to engage in any specific acts. Alleges that he was partially bound for four hours and was forced to accompany the mob. He also alleges that his house was marked with red paint signaling it as a target to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/996060P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Scholl argued that the debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ง 523(a)(5) because it is in the nature of alimony. Finding that the debt to Scholl was not in the nature of alimony. BACKGROUND Scholl and the debtor were divorced by a consent decree of dissolution of marriage ordered by the Iowa District Court for Adair County on October 21. Both parties were represented by counsel in the divorce proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/94-8097.html">PARKS V. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Parks v. The district court held that the anti nepotism policy is constitutional. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. Anti nepotism.<p> <p> (a) <i>Definitions.</i> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An at will employment state. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 discharged municipal at will employee does not have a section 1983 substantive due process occupational liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The City of Advance did not have a written employment agreement with Officer Singleton. Officer Singleton's employment was terminable at will. Defendant Don Cecil was Advance's police chief. Della Price were members of Advance's city council. Was not a named defendant. This statement was recorded by David George. His free speech allegation rested on the premise that he was discharged in an effort to keep him silent concerning Chief Cecil's car purchase. The district court also found that Officer Singleton could not prevail There is no contention on appeal that this interception was illegal or that George was targeting conversations between Joann and Sabrina. As an at will employee. The district court held that Officer Singleton's claims that he was deprived of his rights of intimate association and marital privacy failed because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-6076.htm">97-6076 -- ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO. V. GOLD -- 06/22/1998<BR></A><BR> Gold admitted that he was also attracted to her. 1994 she was aware of feeling like she was falling in love with Dr. She was his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have now reconsidered the case. We hold that dismissal of a public employee on the sole basis of a conversation between his wife and daughter is wholly arbitrary. Don Cecil was the Chief of Police. Della Price were the four members of Advance's City Council. A local private investigator named David George was scanning radio frequencies with a radio scanner and happened to pick up a conversation between Joann and Sabrina. The Council members were upset (as well they should have been) that David Singleton's wife and his daughter had discussed attempting to bribe Cecil. City Attorney Donald Rhodes advised the City Council that as an at will employee. This vote was sufficient to terminate Singleton's employment with the City. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-4639.opa.html">COUZADO V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Couzado v. Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery.<p> On April 5. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Girard informed Holifield that Customs was out of the operation. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA.<p> On April 6. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery.<p> Upon the plane's arrival in Honduras. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQwNjIzX3NvLnBkZg==/03-40623_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IS PE RM ITTE D A ND IS GOV ER NE D B Y T HIS COUR T'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE O F APPELLATE PRO CEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMM ARY OR DER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABA SE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO CO PY IS SERVED BY REASON O F THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORD ER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED in part. She erred by finding that there was no documentary proof of the marriage because the record also contains (1) the same household registration's indication that Pan's wife was married and that she was the daughter in law of Pan's father and (2) a marriage certificate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQwNTcwX3NvLnBkZg==/03-40570_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQwNDIzX3NvLnBkZg==/03-40423_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/976028P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bankruptcy Judge This is an appeal from the bankruptcy court's determination that a debt incurred during the course of a marital dissolution proceeding was excepted from discharge under ง 523(a)(5)1 of the 1 The bankruptcy court also made findings and conclusions with respect to dischargeability under ง 523(a)(15). The Plaintiff conceded that Plaintiff was proceeding solely under ง 523(a)(5). Order for judgment holding alternatively that the debt was excepted from discharge under ง 523(a)(15). Was dissolved in Illinois state court. dissolution decree incorporates a Marital Settlement Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQ3MTVfc28ucGRm/03-4715_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3037.html">FOX V. OPM<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAyLTQ3ODZfc28ucGRm/02-4786_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAyLTQ3MzNfc28ucGRm/02-4733_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952967P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After summary judgment was granted in favor of his client. The summary judgment was Their motion was Appellants seek to compel the attorney to return that portion of the judgment which he retained. BACKGROUND The factual background of this litigation is set forth in detail in our prior opinion Mohamed v. Ct. 185 (1995). are as follows. 1985. 1 For purposes of this appeal. The summarized facts Appellee Mohamed and Ivan Kerr were married on March 1. Kerr The marriage was dissolved in December completed a benefits enrollment form designating Mohamed as the beneficiary of a group life insurance policy. 1988 pursuant to a marriage termination agreement which provided in part: [E]ach of the parties shall be awarded full right. Any other assets which are held in their name or for their benefit as of the date of this Marriage Termination Agreement. Mohamed's motion for summary judgment was granted. No motion to stay execution of judgment was filed by the appellants until August 5. 1994. 2 2 1 Lawyers' Board of Professional Responsibility that he was obligated to turn over the funds to his client. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951185P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. married since 1988. The O'Hagans have been The IRS appeals. Which is their principal place of residence. The O'Hagans have owned the homestead property at all times In during their marriage as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. 1988. O'Hagan has not been assessed any income tax liability and is not obligated to pay any part of her husband's taxes. Which sale was to occur on November Mrs. DISCUSSION The question before us is whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin the government from selling Mr. The primary purpose of the Act is to See The ง facilitate the expeditious collection of taxes by the government. The Supreme Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases brought by an allegedly delinquent taxpayer in which the collection or assessment of taxes would be enjoined because: (1) the government cannot prevail on the merits even if the facts and law are examined in the light most favorable to the government. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTEzNzBfc28ucGRm/06-1370_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A77 316 771 SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 petition for review is DENIED. Is devoid of any reasoning. That is to say. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTExMTYtYWdfc28ucGRm/06-1116-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A97 390 689 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Hua Lin. To the extent that Lin's attack on the IJ's adverse credibility is not dependent on this waived argument. We are not persuaded that the IJ erred. These inconsistencies are material not only to a claim based on Lin's forced abortions. Lin's testimony was inconsistent regarding when she left Taiwan. 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal). For the foregoing reasons the petition for review is DENIED. Lin's pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTE2Mzdfc28ucGRm/06-1637_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A77 767 463 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Is permitted and is governed by this court's Local Rule 0.23 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. Unless the summary order is available in an electronic database which is publicly accessible without payment of fee (such as the database available at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/). The party citing the summary order must file and serve a copy of that summary order together with the paper in which the summary order is cited. If no copy is served by reason of the availability of the order on such a database. The citation must include reference to that database and the docket number of the case in which the order was entered. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. The BIA's order is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. The BIA agrees with the IJ's conclusion that a petitioner is not credible and emphasizes particular aspects of that decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTAwMjlfc28ucGRm/06-0029_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A95 918 727 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. We will vacate and remand for new findings if the agency's reasoning or its fact finding process was sufficiently flawed. Because it could be confidently predicted that the IJ would adhere to the decision were the case remanded). 2 In this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTY4MTdfc28ucGRm/05-6817_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062953U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IJ denied Touho's applications finding Touho was not a credible witness. Finding Touho submitted fraudulent documents in connection with his earlier petition and his recent marriage was a sham entered into for the purpose of gaining immigration benefits. Supported herself despite her numerous medical problems and could do so again if Touho were deported. Adjustment of status and hardship waivers are decisions within the discretion of the Attorney General. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061947P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\2-5\06-1947 DUNMIRE V. MORGAN STANLEY DW, OPN 1.31.WPD<BR></A><BR> Dunmire's account was an individual account. Dunmire signed documents indicating that the address to be used for purposes of communicating about his account was 905 E. The divorce proceedings were acrimonious and were protracted by the parties' legal maneuverings. Matt Hoffman attempted to contact Dunmire by telephone but was unsuccessful. The complaint set forth Dunmire's claim that Morgan Stanley was responsible for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTMwNzVfc28ucGRm/05-3075_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A73 166 452 A95 433 710 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. This Court reviews de novo questions of law regarding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/054418P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND This is the second time Mr. Tamenut is before us. Conceding that he was subject to removal but seeking asylum. Tamenut appealed to this court from the BIA's 2003 affirmance claiming that his due process rights were violated when the IJ allowed the government to introduce the impeachment evidence without prior notice to Tamenut. The motion to reopen should have been filed on or before June 26. Again Tamenut sought stay of removal and was granted permission to remain in the U.S. until January 2006. DISCUSSION There is no dispute in this case that Tamenut's October 4. Motion to reopen was untimely. The BIA should have reopened sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. ง 1003.2(a). The government argues that we have no jurisdiction to review matters committed to agency discretion. As this is. Numerous circuits have concluded that the BIA's refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte under section 1003.2(a) is a discretionary decision that cannot be reviewed by the court of appeals. If we were writing on a clean slate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3271.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are undisputed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ง 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSION We must affirm the Board's decision unless it is arbitrary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-4491.opa.html">GEN. TRADING, INC. V. YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gen. Sr. was president and principal shareholder.<p> Three months after the litigation commenced. Which was dismissed by the bankruptcy court. The district court suit was referred to a magistrate judge for completion of trial and final disposition. Jr. were not found liable to Yale.<p> Subsequent to the magistrate judge's final judgment. As well as claims raised by the new transferees who were impleaded in the supplemental proceedings.<p> II. <i>FACTS</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-3099.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> Appellant and his wife were married in May 1979. One son (Jason) was born in September 1980. Who was born in March 1988. Appellant had graduated from Vanderbilt Medical School and was board certified in anatomic pathology. He was employed as a pathologist at Space Coast Pathology and served as the Associate Medical Examiner for Brevard County.<p> Formal separation proceedings were commenced in State Court. He also threatened to quit his job and go live in a monastery in order to insure that none of his earnings were used to pay child support. On the same day the Income Deduction Order was issued. A final divorce decree was issued on June 12. He does not believe that he will be able to make the payments </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052977P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzalez argues that the application of expedited removal proceedings was impermissibly retroactive and violated his due process and equal protection rights. Pled guilty to second degree burglary in California state court in 1988 and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Gonzalez was subsequently deported to Mexico on October 7. Gonzalez was identified as a deportable alien by an immigration enforcement agent in Bloomington. The Attorney General shall provide that (A) the alien is given reasonable notice of the charges and of the opportunity described in subparagraph (C). (B) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government) by such counsel. (D) a determination is made for the record that the individual upon whom the notice for the proceeding under this section is served (either in person or by mail) is. (E) a record is maintained for judicial review. That application of ง 1228(b) to him was impermissibly retroactive. That he was treated differently from similarly situated aliens in removal proceedings before an immigration judge in violation of his equal protection rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/051541U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 920 (8th Cir. 2006). 1 In March 2001 the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged Lu with being removable for failing to have valid entry documents. CAT relief after finding Lu not credible because her case did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/94-8097.html">PARKS V. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Parks v. The district court held that the anti nepotism policy is constitutional. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. Anti nepotism.<p> <p> (a) <i>Definitions.</i> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTMwNDZfc28ucGRm/04-3046_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM5NTdfc28ucGRm/04-3957_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM0NjNfc28ucGRm/04-3463_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A78 432 504 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Makeka was admitted to the United States as a non immigrant visitor on June 4. She was required to leave the United States on December 3. Contending that she was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ง 1227(a)(1)(B). Her motion was granted in an order dated September 27. Which was granted until March 25. The Imm igration and Naturalization Service was reconstituted as the Bureau of Imm igration and Customs En forcement and the Bureau of U .S. When the hearing was recommenced later that day. Who was purportedly a United States citizen. Makeka's mother was not at the hearing and Makeka acknowledged that she had no evidence that the petition. Makeka argues that (1) she was denied effective assistance of counsel because her lawyer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/042663P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Frango's asylum petition was frivolous. Frango's testimony at the asylum hearing was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI5MThfc28ucGRm/04-2918_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A76 100 748 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. The BIA's order is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. The petition for review of the BIA's March 2005 decision denying the motion to reopen is DISMISSED as moot. The adverse credibility finding rested on three bases: (1) petitioner's inconsistency over whether he was wearing clothes while fording a river to escape capture. The first two grounds were unreasonable bases for the adverse credibility finding: (1) Musenge had consistently stated that he wore shorts while crossing the river (describing his outfit as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI3ODZfc28ucGRm/04-2786_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTAyOTctYWdfc28ucGRm/04-0297-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTA2OTgtYWdfc28ucGRm/04-0698-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042173P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His grounds for appeal are: (1) admission of irrelevant. United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. 1 Aquash's badly decomposed body was discovered in 1976. Looking Cloud and almost every other witness in the case were members of. Were actively involved in. The government's theory at trial was that Looking Cloud and other American Indian Movement members killed Aquash. Who was also a member. Because they suspected she was a federal informant. This case is one of several cases to involve mid 1970s events at Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Who were in a violent political struggle with Native Americans who supported the Bureau of Indians Affairs. Was convicted of killing two FBI agents during his stay at the Reservation. 541 U.S. 1003 (2004). 2 2 When the rumor began to spread around the American Indian Movement that Aquash was an informant. Aquash was constantly guarded and her requests to be let free were refused. Aquash realized that she was about to be killed. Her body was either thrown or it tumbled to the bottom of that cliff. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwNDUyLWFnX29wbi5wZGY=/03-40452-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. * * The Honorable Michael B. BACKGROUND Bao and her children are Chinese nationals from the Fujian province. Bao was married in a traditional village wedding in 1980 and registered her marriage in 1990. Bao's children's claims for asylum have been joined and are derivative of Bao's petition. The IJ waived the appearances of Bao's sons and her attorney informed them that their appearances were unnecessary. She was notified by a local birth control 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 official to report for the insertion of an intrauterine device within two days or be heavily fined. Bao complied with the order and after the IUD was inserted. She was required to report for IUD inspections three or four times a year. The IUD was causing her significant discomfort and she had it removed by a private physician. He was briefly detained before his mother secured his release and promised the officials that Bao would appear and submit to sterilization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041568P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032160P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charles Osiemo Onyinkwa's visa petition and application for adjustment of status was denied in 1997 after the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) determined that his marriage to a United States citizen was for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. After removal proceedings were instituted. Onyinkwa is a native and citizen of Kenya who entered the United States in 1987 on a student visa. The INS found that their marriage was entered into solely for the purpose of evading the immigration laws and denied the visa application on February 25. The proceedings were continued for other reasons. The IJ concluded that the visa petition and Onyinkwa's adjustment of status application were not prima facie approvable. IIRIRA is applicable because Onyinkwa's removal proceedings were initiated after April 1. IIRIRA provides that no court has jurisdiction to review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-14594.man.html">CHESSER V. SPARKS (4/18/2001, NO. 99-14594)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-12993.man.html">PRESTON V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (4/20/2000, NO. 99-12993)<BR></A><BR> Preston appeals the judgment of the tax court that certain payments made by Preston were not deductible as alimony under ง 215 of the Internal Revenue Code. Preston argues that payments to his former spouse and others for his children's expenses were deductible as alimony based upon <EM>Commissioner v. We affirm the tax court's determination that these payments were child support under I.R.C. ง 71(c) and. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.</P> <P> I.R.C. ง 215<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510966.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In September 1988 he was arrested on state drug charges in Newark. In March 1991 while those charges were pending. Savoury pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in the third degree. (The cases sometimes refer to this status as simply </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/021966P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These witnesses testified that they either bought from or were delivered methamphetamine by Espino or Goatley during the four years of their distribution operation. A jury convicted Espino of the charge and found that the amount of methamphetamine involved was 500 grams or more. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/022496P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Silverman appeals the district court's ruling that his children were not habitual residents of Israel at the time their mother brought them to the United States and that. Even if they were. The issues before us are whether the district court (1) improperly determined that the Silverman children's habitual residence is the United States. The official history and commentary in the Federal Register explains that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216135.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU's invitation. I. BACKGROUND Because the various user appellees and vendor appellees are all represented by the ACLU. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214044.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The policy is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Barbara Kennedy was Clint Kennedy's second wife. They were married from 1983 to July of 1991. Mary Beth Kennedy was Clint Kennedy's third wife and was married to him from July of 1991 until the time of his death. BACKGROUND Clint Kennedy was employed by Georgia Pacific Corporation for more than twenty five years. His last position was that of Executive Vice President and. Naming his then wife Barbara as the sole beneficiary if she were still living at the time of his death. We will omit the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015158.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A. Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court are elected by popular vote.1 Ga. Monitors these judicial elections for compliance with Canon 7(B) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.3 Canon 7(B)(1)(d) provides that candidates for any judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not use or participate in the use of any form of public communication which the candidate knows or reasonably should know is false. Or which contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially All superior court and state court judges are also elected by popular vote. The JQC was created by constitutional amendment in 1972. It was vested with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013570P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both the AD&D and the supplementary life insurance coverage was subject to a suicide exclusion. The basic life benefit was not. At the time of Foster's death Phillips Foster was the beneficiary for both the basic life and the AD&D coverage. Jeramy and Angela were Foster's children from The Honorable Ann D. Craig and Ian were children from his second marriage to Nancy Ruhland.2 Foster was found dead on July 18. Contacted the Minneapolis Police Department to report that Foster was missing. Later that morning his body was found on the side of St. The body was dressed completely in white. A note was found in his shoe that had writing on both sides. On the other side of the note was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914594.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the defendant county Commissioner. Who is being sued for money damages in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. ง 1983. Is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiff's claims that he terminated her employment in violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. Haralson County is governed by a one person commission. Defendant Amos Sparks was elected Commissioner and Chesser's then husband. Was elected Sheriff. Sparks and Kimball were political enemies. 2 So. Overtime wages were paid to sheriff's department employees. 2 his stated reason for the termination was that she was insubordinate and demonstrated a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914594.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the defendant county Commissioner. Who is being sued for money damages in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. ง 1983. Is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiff's claims that he terminated her employment in violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. Haralson County is governed by a one person commission. Defendant Amos Sparks was elected Commissioner and Chesser's then husband. Was elected Sheriff. Sparks and Kimball were political enemies. Overtime wages were paid to sheriff's department employees. 2 his stated reason for the termination was that she was insubordinate and demonstrated a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954639.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Customs was out of the Girard informed Holifield that Nevertheless. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery. Woodhull asked if any cargo was being loaded and was told that cargo was being unloaded only. did not see any cargo placed on the airplane. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948097.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND is constitutional. Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-4639.opa.html">COUZADO V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Couzado v. Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery.<p> On April 5. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Girard informed Holifield that Customs was out of the operation. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA.<p> On April 6. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery.<p> Upon the plane's arrival in Honduras. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Az</U> were on brief. Lez</U> was on brief. We affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/994176P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident in September 1983 upon his marriage to an American citizen. Alleging he was ineligible for the status adjustment because his prior marriage to Lucy Iyamba. Some of which are misdirected. Appellate review is of the BIA's decision. Assuming an extra judicial divorce is possible in the region of Nigeria in which Mr. We nonetheless agree with the BIA's conclusion that he was deportable. It appears to indicate only that customary divorce is possible. Is too conclusory to provide evidence that the required steps for a customary divorce occurred. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DBAB43E076D3FEAE88256B18007E3907/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 16430 At slip op. 13284. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/006066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The consideration for the transfer was stated as ten dollars with love and admiration. The deed was not recorded. The deed was recorded on June 30. Was recorded on July 3. That after the transfer the debtor was left with an unreasonably small amount of capital with which to operate his farming business in violation of Ark. The state court found that the debtor was a single person when he transferred the property to his son in The Honorable Mary Davies Scott. That the conveyance was not ineffective as to Paula Marlar Davis and that there was no evidence when the deed was transferred in 1986 that the debtor intended to defraud his creditors. The state court opined: The fact that the deed from John Marlar to Brad Marlar was not recorded does not render it ineffective. If it was executed and delivered and for sufficient consideration then title to the land was effectively conveyed from the grantor to the grantee. The state court ruled that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0B553D51AB385CE88256DB7007AC345/$file/0056431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. 2003 are DENIED. No additional petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case. Stern cross appeals the district court's determination that Stern's pension plan funds are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate. We must determine whether the transfer of proceeds from an Individual Retirement Account ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2204.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. was on brief for appellant. Mahoney & Miller were on brief for appellee. Patrick Casey was traveling in New Hampshire in a Subaru owned and driven by his fiancee. While Casey was returning to the Subaru but still about ten feet away from its rear. He was struck by another car and severely injured. Was violating a license restriction requiring corrective lenses. Casey claimed to be covered by the uninsured driver provisions of the policy which are described below. Was removed to federal court. Ruled on summary judgment that Casey was not covered under the uninsured motorist portion of the policy.1 After the district court's ruling on the uninsured motorist provision. Casey filed a motion to reform the policy 1The court also held that Casey was entitled to benefits under the policy's personal injury protection provisions. Metropolitan does not challenge the latter ruling. 2 2 to have himself listed as an additional named insured. A final judgment was entered. We note that the Metropolitan policy stated that it was a contract made under. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF7CCDB0A79D0EF3882573330054DD2A/$file/0515189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals in two diversity actions brought under Nevada law. Where the meaning is not clear from the context. The dealership repays GMAC the portion of the loan attributable to an individual vehicle when that vehicle is sold or leased. GMAC enters into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1971.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/00-15158.opn.html">WEAVER V. BONNER (10/18/2002, NO. 00-15158)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1272.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lahoud stated that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1532.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 No. 03 1532 Article 3 forbids expelling a person to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1862.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paez is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who overstayed a non immigrant visa. What he objects to is the refusal of the immigration judge and the Board to continue the removal proceeding so that he could pursue alternative relief.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BAB4C2C57EF227B588256C5900521292/$file/0070583.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He sought to remain in the United States by claiming U.S. citizenship on the ground that the Philippines was a U.S. territory when he was born. While his appeal was pending. The Arthur rule which is based on the Amendments does not bind Ison. Ison should have been permitted to make a simultaneous filing of a petition for an immigrant visa and an application for adjustment of status. [3] Accordingly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1102.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lin claims that the Chinese government forced her to abort two pregnancies under its coercive family planning policies and will subject her to involuntary sterilization if she is forced to return to China. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief because he concluded that Lin was not credible. A ruling the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed. 2 No. 03 1102 We vacate the removal order and remand Lin's case for rehearing because the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. I Lin is a 35 year old native of Wenzhou City in the Zhejiang Province of China. Who was 22 at the time. Because Lin and her husband married before they had reached the legally permissible age 23 for women and 25 for men they were unable to register their union for several years after the ceremony. Several months after they were married. Lin was unable to produce the required </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2565.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2281.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Fourth and fifth claims were dismissed and the district court granted Hoyt's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. <P> Norton now seeks our review of the district court's assertion of jurisdiction over the case and the grant of summary judgment on the promissory estoppel and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Hoyt led Norton to believe that he was divorced. Norton discovered that Hoyt was actually married. Hoyt told Norton he was getting a divorce. Norton was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Bristol. She asserts that she would not have remained in the relationship with Hoyt if it were not for his frequent promises to divorce his wife. No child was born of the relationship because Norton suffered a spontaneous miscarriage.</P> <P> In March 1998. Norton was distraught by this turn of events and sought counseling and medical attention to deal with the depression and anxiety she was experiencing. Norton reported that she was not able to resume work and that she possibly would not ever be able to commit to another relationship. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tow</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Is an Algerian national. Including yet another in the series of retroactivity problems that have trailed Congress's enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Which mandates the reinstatement of a prior deportation order (or removal order the terms are interchangeable on these facts) when an alien subject to such an order is found to have reentered the country illegally. He argues that the reinstatement provision is impermissibly retroactive as applied to his case. That the regulatory procedure implementing it is ultra vires. He asserts that the reinstatement provision ought not to have been invoked in this instance because another statute trumped its operation. The prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. The alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under [the INA]. Conviction for an aggravated felony) were subject to having their original deportation orders reinstated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2060.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Covell</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B87F9D1022854F068825710800815B16/$file/0316518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a cautionary tale for ERISA administrators. We are met with three claimants to an ERISA governed life insurance policy held by the decedent. The two most basic components of any ERISA plan are the plan administrator and the plan documents. The plan administrator is a fiduciary charged with the duty to administer the benefit plan </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2215.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. We hold that (1) such a prosecution is consistent with the language and intent of the statute. (2) the district court did not have authority to impose such an order.<STRONG>I.</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1744.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the proper respondent. 2 No. 02 1744 ing the expiration of her visa. Awad filed an application for political asylum claiming that she was subjected to persecution in Lebanon from a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3F23ACE4CA2BB9588256E5A00707D76/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 16430 At slip op. 13284. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2585.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2525.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Although Batista concedes that he is removable based on a drug trafficking conviction. He contends that he is entitled to relief from removal because his father. Was his custodial parent. Hence he is a derived United States citizen. We find that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding Cesar Batista's nationality and transfer this case to the district court for a new hearing on the matter.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-4491.opa.html">GEN. TRADING, INC. V. YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gen. Sr. was president and principal shareholder.<p> Three months after the litigation commenced. Which was dismissed by the bankruptcy court. The district court suit was referred to a magistrate judge for completion of trial and final disposition. Jr. were not found liable to Yale.<p> Subsequent to the magistrate judge's final judgment. As well as claims raised by the new transferees who were impleaded in the supplemental proceedings.<p> II. <i>FACTS</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congregation Kol Ami (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/023313np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ง 1252 and will deny Hebishy's petitions for review. Who are familiar with the facts of this case. Was charged with violating ง 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The IJ set forth in detail his findings that Hebishy's testimony was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024332np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004) OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is a petition for review of an Immigration Judge's decision denying asylum. We hold that we are without jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge's finding of untimeliness and that Petitioner's other argument is foreclosed by a recent decision of this court. Fatoumata Sidibeh ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2015_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Relying on general country report information suggesting that female circumcision is not ubiquitous in Cameroon. Concluded that their fears of future persecution were unreasonable. Their reasons for discounting the petitioners' fears are problematic. I. BACKGROUND We draw upon the petitioners' asylum application and testimony at an immigration hearing in relaying these background facts.1 Agbor and Ebai were married in the summer of 2001 in a traditional Cameroonian ceremony. Agbor was 25 years old at the time. (Both Mamfe and Dequa are in the Southwest Province of Cameroon.). Her mother told her that it was time </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/031027u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A. Diakite's principal argument is that the IJ erred by finding that he had engaged in a fraudulent marriage. Diakite argues that this finding was in direct opposition to the vast majority of the record. It is clear that the IJ's finding was not only supported by substantial evidence but is practically the only logical conclusion possible based on the record evidence. The record is replete with evidence upon which the IJ could have based his decision. We will only point to some of it here. Satchell when both were visiting someone at the hospital. Satchell testified that she was not visiting anyone at the hospital but was working at the hospital. That she met Diakite in the hospital room of his sister (the person he was visiting) and that she in fact gave him her phone number at that time. Satchell testified that Diakite's work route took him all the way to California and that he was gone all the time for his job. Diakite testified that Satchell had converted to Islam and was at the time of the hearing a M uslim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9AA6971BF3CC423388256E5A00707CCC/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants are JR International Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/032000np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jin claims that he was persecuted because of his resistance to China's family planning policies and that the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0854p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She thought that she was Cameron's common law wife but neither New York nor New Jersey. IRS contends it was entitled to the settlement funds by virtue of tax liens arising out of taxes assessed against Cameron and Freck on income attributable to Cameron for tax years 1978. That it was entitled to credit the payment first to interest and principal for the earliest years or in the manner most advantageous to the government. The district court concluded that Freck could not qualify for relief from the assessment under 26 U.S.C.A. ง 6013(e)(1) (West Supp. 1994) as an innocent spouse because she was never married to Cameron. It then accepted IRS's argument that she was equitably estopped from asserting she was not liable for taxes on Cameron's income because of IRS's reliance on her innocent misrepresentation that Freck was Cameron's wife in giving him the benefit of the lower joint rates he was not entitled to as a single person during taxable years now closed. Freck contends the settlement funds were paid to IRS by her adversary's counsel without her knowledge and that she had no opportunity to tell IRS how to apply them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1482.htm">02-1482 -- PETERS V. WISE -- 10/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8FF00A2174992DCF88256B3E00003338/$file/0035528.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question we now consider is whether Jacqueline's efforts with respect to her dissolution proceedings should have been excepted from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. ง 362(b)(2)(A)(ii). BACKGROUND Underlying this bankruptcy appeal is a marriage gone awry. Jacqueline and Christopher Allen were married for seventeen 558 years before their divorce in December 1998. Jacqueline was employed as Christopher's bookkeeper and office manager. Jacqueline was awarded spousal support of $4500 per month plus 35% of Christopher's earnings over $156. Jacqueline also received certain marital assets that are not at issue here. Jacqueline was proceeding with both the personal injury case and the dissolution appeal when. The remaining issues are addressed in a separately filed memorandum disposition. 1 Under ง 157(b)(5). The request does not appear to have been filed in the California court. Her counsel characterized the pleadings as the foundation of her request for relief and represented that they had not actually been filed in violation of the automatic stay. 560 DISCUSSION Two bankruptcy provisions relating to stays are at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4162_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allege that they have been stalked and harassed unjustifiably by Edward Krieger. Was responsible for the Deputy's actions. We agree with the district court that the Fourth Amendment claim is meritless and hold that it was properly dismissed. We believe that the pleading requirements of Rule 8 have been satisfied but that the claim fails on the merits. Robert Alty is a police officer for the City of Belvidere. Sat in his police car outside of businesses that the plaintiffs were visiting in an effort to cause the couple </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/96a1487p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Three appeals presenting the same critical issue are before us. Will be stated separately. The target of the grand jury proceeding was the son of the subpoenaed witness. The son became the target of a government investigation as a result of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1664p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted by a federal grand jury and convicted in 1990 for drug violations. I. Franklin Uzo Igbonwa is a Nigerian citizen who entered the United States in 1986 as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3218_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roman Sokolov filed an asylum application claiming that he was persecuted in Russia because he is a practicing Baptist. While his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was pending. He was authorized to remain in the United States until March 8. After this application was filed. Was fired by his employer and beaten and harassed by members of a Russian nationalist political party. This was the only direct evidence in the record supporting his claim. Who might have corroborated it. Sokolov claimed that the reason he filed his application after the applicable one year deadline was because of injuries he sustained in a June 1999 car accident. He acknowledged that he was able to walk with crutches within weeks of the accident and did not consider filing for asylum until several months later. Explaining that while </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2989_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The practice of favoring close family members or friends with lucrative government contracts is hardly a new one. It is usually forbidden. Which in turn was receiving federal monies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Moore argues primarily that she had no duty to disclose the fact that she was her mother's daughter to the City (and hence to the federal government). WH was a non profit organization that Cameron established to carry out neighborhood social programs. It was largely funded by HUD block grants awarded by the City of Milwaukee. Cameron ran for and was elected to be an alderwoman on Milwaukee's Common Council. Although the City is responsible for awarding and administering particular grants. After a block grant is awarded to an organization. If all is in order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-14594.man.html">CHESSER V. SPARKS (4/18/2001, NO. 99-14594)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-5387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1882_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Palestinian Khaled Abdel Latif Dumeisi was in close contact with the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1339_033.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Different panels of this court reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals in whole or part in a staggering 40 percent of the 136 petitions to review the Board that were resolved on the merits. For the 82 civil cases during this period in which the United States was the appellee. Was 18 percent. Our criticisms of the Board and of the immigration judges have frequently been severe. 610 (7th Cir. 2005) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1126_038.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They argued that Chen had suffered past persecution because: (1) he was expelled from school for voicing opposition to the birthcontrol policy. (2) his former girlfriend was forced to abort a pregnancy with his child. They also argued that they both had a well founded fear of future persecution based on the fact that they had two children and wished to have more. I. Chen and Lin are both from Fujian province. While their cases were pending in the immigration court. The cases were consolidated before the final hearing on their asylum claims. A. Chen Chen was admitted to the United States on a visitor's visa in 1992 and overstayed. Alleging that he was afraid to return to China because he had engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1369a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dobbs argued the cause and was on the brief for petitioner New Valley Corporation. Woodall argued the cause and was on the brief for respondent Doretha Gilliam. The LHWCA was made applicable to the District of Columbia by the 1928 District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act. Holding that legal marriage alone is insufficient to confer eligibility for survivor benefits. Courts must examine the facts of the relationship to determine if there </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-12993.man.html">PRESTON V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (4/20/2000, NO. 99-12993)<BR></A><BR> Preston appeals the judgment of the tax court that certain payments made by Preston were not deductible as alimony under ง 215 of the Internal Revenue Code. Preston argues that payments to his former spouse and others for his children's expenses were deductible as alimony based upon <EM>Commissioner v. We affirm the tax court's determination that these payments were child support under I.R.C. ง 71(c) and. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.</P> <P> I.R.C. ง 215<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994178.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Lyons is an investment banking firm that specializes in helping promising businesses find financial backing through the private placement of securities and joint venture partnerships. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991675.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 99 1675 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1 contends that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict for Prezioso and that the district court erred in awarding punitive damages against Thomas' estate because South Carolina law does not allow for an award of punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. The evidence was as follows. He was embarrassed. Greatly concerned about who else might have received copies of the photographs of his fiancee. Prezioso received another 1 This appeal is being pursued by Thomas' estate. The two were married in August 1995.2 The effects of Thomas' conduct lingered. Their marriage was a volatile one. At the time of trial they were separated. His motion was granted. The action subsequently was removed to United States District Court. Maintaining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict in favor of Prezioso. Which states in relevant part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8785D1924F662F3A88256CC200811F7B/$file/0056431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stern cross appeals the district court's determination that Stern's pension plan funds are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate. We must determine whether the transfer of proceeds from an Individual Retirement Account ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/865985D30514C17188256F46005B4470/$file/0371013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IJ denied asylum finding Ding's forced abortion at the hands of Chinese population control officials was. Voluntary because she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0270p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Badwan is a 62 year old native and citizen of Jordan. Badwan's divorce from Bryan was thus </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0235n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales on Shjefni and Dashi's asylum applications was held on December 22. That in 1997 he was detained for several hours at the local police station and asked for the names of local organizers of the Democratic Party. Of which he was a member. During which time he was pushed and struck. That he was detained for an hour or so on a later date and asked the same questions. He was again detained at the police station and asked for the names of local Democratic Party leaders. He was held for one to two weeks. He was again pushed and struck when he would provide no information. Were hostile to his wife and his parents. Finding that Shjefni was not credible and that his testimony therefore was insufficient to meet the burden of proving past persecution. That even if he were credible. The conditions in Albania had changed significantly since Shjefni left there.1 The denial of asylum became final when it was adopted by the BIA on March 28. The BIA The Immigration Judge noted that if Shjefni were granted asylum. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974763.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeTemple's case was assigned to Judge Stamp. DeTemple moved to recuse Judge Stamp on the grounds that Judge Stamp was disqualified because of the Judge's communications with the magistrate judge. Tennant renewed his motion to withdraw and stated that he was unprepared to defend DeTemple. Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C.ง 455. Was named as one of the unsecured creditors in DeTemple's personal bankruptcy. Contractors Supply would have been one of its victims. Are the individual creditors </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972358.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We hold that we have jurisdiction to review Okpa's retroactivity claim. Who was affiliated with the Liberian embassy. This status may be granted to an alien who is a national of a designated country that is experiencing an ongoing armed conflict. Liberia was in the middle of a civil war. Okpa (following Addo's advice) filed a TPS application falsely stating that he was a citizen of Liberia. Addo in turn was to submit to the INS documentation from the Liberian embassy showing that Okpa was Liberian. Okpa initially stated that he was Liberian. Okpa recanted and admitted that he was from Nigeria. Was inadmissible for permanent residence because he had submitted a fraudulent TPS application. Section 212(i) allows for a waiver when the alien is inadmissible because he has filed a fraudulent document with the INS. ง 212(i) permitted the Attorney General to grant a waiver </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972358.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-3099.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> Appellant and his wife were married in May 1979. One son (Jason) was born in September 1980. Who was born in March 1988. Appellant had graduated from Vanderbilt Medical School and was board certified in anatomic pathology. He was employed as a pathologist at Space Coast Pathology and served as the Associate Medical Examiner for Brevard County.<p> Formal separation proceedings were commenced in State Court. He also threatened to quit his job and go live in a monastery in order to insure that none of his earnings were used to pay child support. On the same day the Income Deduction Order was issued. A final divorce decree was issued on June 12. He does not believe that he will be able to make the payments </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971480.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the appellees are corrected to read: JAMES S. Circuit Judges. Judge Russell participated in the decision of this case but died before the opinion was issued. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ง 46(d). We reverse because offices providing services to disabled students at public colleges are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0011n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Toe argues that the IJ's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Was sufficient to warrant an adverse credibility determination. Alleges that he was persecuted because he was a supporter and employee of the Tolbert Government. When he was overthrown in a coup led by Samuel Doe. Taylor was elected President and served from 1997 until 2003. When Toe was handcuffed and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Dennis Mitchell Orbe was convicted by a Virginia jury of capital murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder. The entire incident was captured on videotape by the store's security camera. The following facts are taken from the opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court on Orbe's direct appeal of his convictions and sentence: Near 3:38 a.m. on January 24. Walked up to the check out counter where Richard Sterling Burnett was working as a clerk. As Burnett was clutching his chest and struggling to remain in a standing position. Although Orbe was quickly identified as the gunman from the still images obtained from the videotape. He was not apprehended until January 31. Orbe was ultimately tried and convicted in York County of the capital murder of Burnett. A capital sentencing proceeding was then held. Orbe </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0775n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner sought to have the conditions removed on the basis that she entered the marriage in good faith and divorced her husband only because he had been abusive. Because we find the BIA's summary dismissal of the appeal was an appropriate exercise of its discretion due to The Honorable Henry R. Item #6 on the Notice of Appeal Form EOIR 26 asks the person appealing to indicate if she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024287.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Louisa Satia and Kevin Waton Nanji were convicted by a jury of involuntary servitude. Satia was convicted of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and passport fraud. Rule 8(a) provides that two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment when the offenses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0562n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was submitted by Wang and if so. Wang was born in Shenyang. Wang was able to borrow money to purchase a Xiali model automobile and become licensed as a taxi driver in Shenyang in 1996. Wang was arrested for participating in the strike. He was released. That because more than 60 percent of the taxis in Shenyang were Xiali models. A visa application in Wang's name was filed with the U.S. Wang's occupation was not listed as a taxi driver. Wang's wife Jin applied for and was refused a visa to travel to the United States on June 8. Her visa application was approved on June 21. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/00-15158.opn.html">WEAVER V. BONNER (10/18/2002, NO. 00-15158)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-4277.opa.html">LASCHE V. GEORGE W. LASCHE PROFIT SHARING PLAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lasche v. We will decide whether a spouse legally waived her rights to her deceased spouse's retirement plan. Because the waiver language was too general to be effective. Because the district court was correct in concluding that the waiver failed to comply with the requirements of ERISA. We affirm.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> George Lasche and appellee Madeline Baker Lasche were married in August of 1985. This plan was reformed several times mainly because George transferred his retirement funds to different financial institutions. Madeline was required to sign part four of the Form. My consent means that I give up rights I may have under the Plan and applicable law (other than rights I may later have as the survivor in a joint annuity with the participant) to receive those amounts payable under the Plan by reason of the participant's death to which I would otherwise be entitled if I were the Participant sole beneficiary.<p> <p> R2 49 Exhibit E Part 4. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0394n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner's status as a conditional permanent resident was terminated because her marriage to a United States citizen was annulled within two years of her admission to the country. 8 U.S.C. ง 1186a(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii). That petitioner was not entitled to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0257n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BIA found that Keita failed to establish that she suffered persecution or that the government was unable or unwilling to control her alleged persecutor. The IJ also concluded that Keita had not established persecution on account of a protected category or that the Mali government was unable or unwilling to control Bidanis. It first found that Keita failed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012406.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Second full paragraph the first sentence is deleted. Is replaced with the following: As Sheriff David Kelbie noted in his commentary to the Scottish Court of Sessions's opinion in Donofrio v. A parent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B07C412D8CA2D8888256C850058E77C/$file/0016423p.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bush is substituted for his predecessor. We have carefully reconsidered the question of Newdow's Article III standing in light of this custody order and affirm our holding that he has standing as a parent to continue to pursue his claim in federal court. Newdow had alleged in the district court that he was the father. This informal arrangement apparently was not subject to any custody order until February 6. To have sole legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health. If mutual agreement is not reached in the above. Banning may exercise legal control of [the child] that is not specifically prohibited or inconsistent with the physical custody order. The father shall have access to all of [the child's] school and medical records. Which we have granted. Banning's motion for leave to intervene presents a question of first impression in this Circuit which we are required to consider. Contending that tutoring for his dyslexic son was being provided by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/683E7F5C1AA50A9688256AC70059A5CF/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants are JR International Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0105n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Julie Jestice ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0091p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was convicted in Ohio state court of five counts of aggravated murder with two death penalty specifications and five counts of kidnapping. Facts as Recited by the Ohio Supreme Court Lundgren's Background Lundgren was born in Missouri and raised in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0051p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> So Haddad was subject to the deadline. Because the motion to reopen was filed late. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are basically undisputed. The BIA construed the motion to be exempt from the usual ninety day deadline for motions to reopen because it was based on the changed circumstance of Haddad's divorce. Given the nineteen months that had elapsed since the initial appeal was denied and the thirty nine months that had elapsed since the divorce. There is some ambiguity with respect to Haddad's date of entry. The regulations make a spouse's receipt of this derivative benefit contingent on the spousal relationship being in existence when the principal alien's asylum application is approved. 8 C.F.R. ง 1208.21(b). The BIA very well might have severed Haddad's case from Ishaq's appeal if Haddad had simply asked. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661355AA530014388825727900824A50/$file/0370674.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The removal order is deemed to be executed. We consider whether this change in regulation is valid. Why this is so is not clear. It's certainly possible to conceive of a system where a removal order remains in force permanently and may be re executed whenever the alien is found to have reentered the country illegally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0789n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We vacate the court's ruling that the refund was Crane's sole The Honorable Milton I. I Sarah Crane and Angus MacPhail were married in 1983. The couple's 1996 tax liability was determined by December 31. $87.00 was attributable to MacPhail alone. Crane and MacPhail's joint income taxes were paid in full by Stanbery. Because it was Stanbery's practice to make the following year's estimated first quarterly payment when filing for a due date extension. 000 check was drawn on Stanbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-4277.opa.html">LASCHE V. GEORGE W. LASCHE PROFIT SHARING PLAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lasche v. We will decide whether a spouse legally waived her rights to her deceased spouse's retirement plan. Because the waiver language was too general to be effective. Because the district court was correct in concluding that the waiver failed to comply with the requirements of ERISA. We affirm.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> George Lasche and appellee Madeline Baker Lasche were married in August of 1985. This plan was reformed several times mainly because George transferred his retirement funds to different financial institutions. Madeline was required to sign part four of the Form. My consent means that I give up rights I may have under the Plan and applicable law (other than rights I may later have as the survivor in a joint annuity with the participant) to receive those amounts payable under the Plan by reason of the participant's death to which I would otherwise be entitled if I were the Participant sole beneficiary.<p> <p> R2 49 Exhibit E Part 4. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0431n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant and his company were primarily engaged in commercial construction and by the 1970s had begun working on projects in the Middle East. Jr ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4146.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached to this order. Montague also argues the district court erred by enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice because the enhancement was unsupported by the evidence and was based upon judge found facts in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as addressed in Blakely v. Deanne stated there were two firearms in the house and one in Montague's truck. Which were seized by the police. She testified that she was telling the grand jury the truth because. Deanne's children indicated she was frightened of Montague. Because Deanne's testimony was an out of court statement which Montague had no opportunity to cross examine. The arguments can be grouped into three general categories: 1) the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Deanne invoked her spousal privilege of her own free will. 2) the district court should have asked Deanne to state her reasons for invoking her privilege. We accept a district court's factual finding that a defendant procured the absence of a witness unless the finding is clearly erroneous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0289n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That marriage did not endure the couple separated on their wedding day when Rasnick informed Hanna she was pregnant with The Honorable Peter Beer. Hanna answered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9573.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The parties are familiar with the facts and we will not repeat them herein. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Uganda. Petitioner's application for asylum was denied. Was granted a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) in January 2002. Ivan Were. Were witnesses in that proceeding. The IJ's questions to petitioner were translated into her native language of Luganda. Petitioner had not argued that such documentary evidence was unavailable. If petitioner's husband </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-5153.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We review the whole record to determine only whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. The ALJ's factual analysis of the record at step three is not supported by substantial evidence. Her Impairments Were Established Before Age 22 Listing 12.05(C) specifically requires that claimant show that she had: (1) a valid verbal. Claimant was born on May 9. Was 22 years old at the time of the administrative hearing in March 1999. Her impairments were established before the age of 22. a. Full scale scores are provided by the IQ test. Claimant's IQ was assessed on January 12. When she was 21 years old. Her lowest score was a performance score of 70. This was before the age of 22. <hr> b. Second Prong of Listing 12.05(C) This court has held that where an ALJ determines at step two that a claimant's impairment is severe. That impairment is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60500.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rodriguez contends that the BIA erred in stating that a prior visa petition filed on her behalf was denied due to marriage fraud. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. petition was denied for marriage fraud. The basis for denial of the petition was that Rodriguez failed to make a prima facie showing that she was eligible for relief from removal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31256.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances * Appellee's motions to dismiss for lack of standing and appellate jurisdiction are denied. The district court's judgment is affirmed for the following reasons. The disputed land is not community property. Property of the estate is defined in 11 U.S.C. ง 541 and state law governs the characterization of property as community or separate. Article 3535 of the Louisiana Civil Code provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0441p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court made the following statement of facts: The case sub judice is a quiet title action filed in the Jessamine County Circuit Court brought under 28 U.S.C. ง 2410. The facts are as follows. The account was in the name of Orion Holding Company. A debit card account was set up for each client at the TSB Bank in the Isle of Jersey. Both Grand Turk and Isle of Jersey have stringent bank secrecy laws and the records of bank accounts in these places can not be reached by legal process. Ray Spotts would have commissions and other taxable income due him sent to Proven Triumphs. These funds were then sent to Orion Holding Company's account at Barclay Bank. Were forwarded to the settlement officer at the time of settlement on the purchase of the home. To disguise the fact that the Spott's were using their own money to purchase the home. This note was secured by a mortgage on the home. The home was purchased for $272. Although the note and mortgage with Orion Bank and Trust were in the names of both Ray and Peggy Spotts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1324CF9AC8A788F88256C3F007606AC/$file/0156576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented in this case with a question of first impression: does the doctrine of laches apply to nondischargeability complaints brought under 11 U.S.C. ง 523(a)(3)(B) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(b)? The bankruptcy appellate panel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0139p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a consolidated appeal. Challenging the TennCare program's handling of their applications for coverage under the program when Plaintiffs were denied coverage. Plaintiffs Ooten and Hyslope requested and were granted permission to intervene in the action in 1998 and 2000. The TennCare program is a federal waiver plan under the Medicaid Act approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 42 U.S.C. ง 1315. TennCare coverage is extended to three groups of individuals: (1) existing Medicaid beneficiaries and those who meet Medicaid's financial and/or medical eligibility requirements. 1993 . . . did not have coverage under an individual health insurance policy or who did not have (either directly or through a family member) coverage under. The TennCare regulations define uninsurable persons as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Caldeira</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-14947.opn.html">AL NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (11/28/2001, NO. 00-14947)<BR></A><BR> The government's appeal of his separate bond case is therefore moot. The first action is the government's effort to remove Al Najjar from the United States due to the expiration of his status as a legal alien. Which is the subject of this appeal. Is Al Najjar's bid to be released from detention on bond during the pendency of his deportation proceedings. It is the recent and final completion of the first action that renders the instant case unambiguously moot. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2107.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though the text of this law is materially identical to one held constitutional in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. [by] the physician who is to perform the abortion. The district court concluded that the higher cost will reduce by 10% to 13% the number of abortions performed in Indiana. Some of these women will travel to states that do not require two trips. Others will forego an abortion. Some who do have an abortion in Indiana will delay that procedure until the second trimester. The judge also thought that experience in Indiana showing that the demand for abortion did not decline when information was provided on paper or over the telephone implies that the reduction in the number of abortions is attributable to higher cost (a bad reason) rather than to the statutory information (a valid reason). No. 01 2107 Indiana's statute reads as follows: 3 An abortion shall not be performed except with the voluntary and informed consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/031183U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including that a jailer was to be stationed on the second floor twenty four hours a day. The second floor staffing order was followed. It was jail policy during the relevant period that when staff were aware an inmate was a suicide risk. The inmate was placed in the first floor cell closest to the dispatcher (which had a camera in it). The inmate was stripped to his underwear. Blanket were removed. Who was nineteen at the time. Was having a sexual encounter with her niece and her daughters from a former marriage. Stating before he left that he was not going to the penitentiary. Who were between the ages of five and ten. Said she did not take the statement seriously as Wade had repeatedly stated when angry that he was going to kill himself. They discussed his statement to Heather and determined it was an attempt to 2 manipulate Heather and not a serious suicide threat. The statement was not reported to anyone at the jail where Wade was later held. It was included in Scott's written notes. Which were not reviewed by anyone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514241.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We determine whether a habeas petition challenging the petitioner's detention and impending removal on the ground that he is not subject to a removal order amounts to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <U>Arturo Diaz Angueira</U> and <U>Roberto Feliberti</U> were on brief. Arias Larcada</U></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/94-2256.wpd.html">BACA-PRIETO V. GUIGNI<BR></A><BR> The thrust of petitioner's complaint is that the INS erred in deeming his return to the United States from Mexico in February 1988 an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/023927p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The immigration judge informed Barker orally: I have granted you voluntary departure for a period of six months. Then you will have to leave the United States. You would have to ask the Immigration Service for that not me. I have no authority to extend that time. . . . Then there will be penalties. Do you have any questions? Written notice was provided to Barker in English and Spanish and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB4BD84C614F029D88256E4A00616FFC/$file/0210333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a direct criminal appeal. Who was crying. Told the policeman first that the fight was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schoppert first contends that the government's concession that the existence of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3598.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that they were required to indemnify him for any judgment obtained against him and for the cost of defending the suit. The Settlement Agreement provided that Hazel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4FEC09E8DF1F1F48825701F00154E3F/$file/0256751.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Claiming that the detention was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and seeking damages. Rocha's initial contention is that. The courts are closed to the Sissokos. 1 purThe INS was abolished on March 1. Its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4C5526471EA803A88256E5A00707BA2/$file/9916501.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Misstatement is grounds for recission. Allstate was entitled to rescind the policy and did not act in bad faith by doing so. Because Allstate's underwriting criteria were relevant to the issue whether the misstatement was material. Testimony on that topic was properly allowed. She was contacted because she had a Sears credit card account. Which was recorded and later transcribed. Freeman was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q: Okay. I'll read a list of illness [sic] and please listen carefully and after I have finished answer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4NzItYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2872-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that such denials are discretionary judgments committed by law to the BIA (acting on behalf of the Attorney General) and that we are precluded from reviewing such discretionary judgments by 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that such denials are discretionary judgments committed by law to the BIA (acting on behalf of the Attorney General) and that we are precluded from reviewing such discretionary judgments by 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Saloum was admitted into the United States on September 19. Saloum was apprehended at a port of entry in Niagra Falls. A Syrian national to whom Saloum was not married was in fact a boy named Jos้ Gonzalez. After Saloum was refused admission into the country. Saloum was charged with being </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/95-8313.opa.html">POWELL V. POWELL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Powell v. Who is Secretary of the Navy. Contending that the FSPA is unconstitutional as applied to him. Holding that the FSPA is not unconstitutional as applied to him. That he was barred from bringing his action under principles of res judicata. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2127.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs direct us to no fewer than thirty rulings they argue were mistaken and require reversal. 1021 04.(2) Most pertinent among the district court's rulings for our purposes is the disposition of Ms. Underlying them all is the fact that. Frank explained that there were rumors circulating about Ms. Williams refused to resign and asked for a written explanation why she was being fired. Frank allegedly responded that she did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQwMjAtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4020-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the agency's adverse credibility determination was based on misstatements of the facts in the record and speculation concerning purported testimony of which there was no record. Sitting by designation. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 was not based on substantial evidence. Are natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China. Gao </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4NjktcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5869-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General Janet Reno as the respondent in this case. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 cross appeals the District Court's denial of his request to apply for naturalization. The habeas corpus petition is converted into The a petition for review and said petition is granted. Petitioner's cross appeal is dismissed as Petitioner failed to raise the issue of naturalization eligibility before the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Matthew L. Wilson is required to make an individualized showing that he decided to forgo the opportunity to affirmatively file for section 212(c) relief in reliance on his ability to file for such relief at a later date. The case is remanded to the BIA for further remand so that relevant findings of fact on the issue of such individualized reliance can be made. Wilson's cross appeal regarding the district court's ruling on his eligibility to apply for naturalization is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4239_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitioner sought asylum on the ground that if she is returned to her native Nigeria she may be forced to undergo female circumcision. If her fear is well founded she is entitled to asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that it is not well founded. 2 No. 06 4239 fear of persecution) that after her second child (and first son) was born. Her husband's family pressured her to be circumcised because it is traditional in his tribe for a woman to be circumcised upon the birth of her first son. The petitioner was afraid that the procedure would kill her. She was able to resist the pressure from her husband's family for ten years because he refused to yield to its pressure. He changed his mind when his father told him he would not inherit the family farm unless she was circumcised. There is an element of paradox in this since as long as she is in the United States and her husband and the children are in Nigeria the children's home is in a sense broken. She and her husband speak frequently by telephone and he has apologized to her for seeking to have her circumcised. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4083_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was ineligible. Costello seeks to offset this amount by the benefits she would have received had she applied under 2 No. 06 4083 the other ex husband's account. An administrative law judge concluded that such an offset is unavailable because the situation does not fall within 42 U.S.C. ง402's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/031740np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a petition for review by Nestor Juarez. Because the parties are fully familiar with the background facts and procedural history. The government contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Juarez's challenge to the INS District Director's decision because the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031576P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The debtor's former spouse was awarded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031970P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 110 Stat. 3009 546 (1996).1 We have jurisdiction to review the reinstatement of a prior deportation order pursuant to ง 242 of the INA. It was not until February 5. While the application was pending. We will cite to the INA section numbers throughout with an initial cross reference to their very different section numbers in Title 8 of the United States Code. 2 1 [Lopez Flores] is not eligible to file an adjustment of status application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3C4DCCFDF44E5BA88256EE6007A9265/$file/0272689.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ASHCROFT 10483 and his wife were arrested and fined. That his wife was forcibly sterilized. Our review ends if there is evidence to support the IJ's adverse credibility decision. There is. He was placed in exclusion proceedings and released into the community pending a hearing. Was ordered deported in absentia. Claiming he was persecuted in China because he and his wife had been fined for having too many children. Which was granted. A hearing was held on August 26. Their first son was born in 1979. While a second was born in 1981. Then required Feng Ying to have an IUD inserted. Li testified that the family was also fined 8. Told they would be jailed if the fine was not paid. That were taken in 1984. A doctor examined them in 1999 and concluded they were consistent with a tubal ligation performed on an unknown patient at an unknown time. It is undisputable that he made a LI v. The question is whether there are sufficient inconsistencies for an IJ to reasonably conclude that the 1999 testimony was not credible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCBC8CC2D1B4C6E888256D3D006FDD5D/$file/0171529.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 6841 of the slip opinion. Barthelemy's petition for review is dismissed. Barthelemy was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He is an aggravated felon. Because he is an aggravated felon. Barthelemy is subject to immediate removal from this country unless he can establish that he is a United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. ง 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The facts in this petition are not disputed. Barthelemy was born in Port au Prince. Neither Roger nor Enese were United States citizens at the time of Barthelemy's birth. Barthelemy was 11 years old. Roger was naturalized as a United States citizen in 1993 when Barthelemy was 14 years old. Whether Roger's naturalization derivatively conferred United States citizenship on Barthelemy is the issue before us. II We do not have jurisdiction to review a criminal alien's final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(a)(2)(C). The petitioner claims he is a United States citizen not subject to removal. We have jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioner is an alien or a citizen. 8 U.S.C. ง 1252(b)(5)(A). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032217np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Darchia contends that substantial evidence does not support the Immigration Judge's findings (1) that Darchia's testimony was not credible. (3) that there is 2 no clear probability that Darchia would be persecuted or tortured if he were deported to Georgia. Darchia was admitted to this country in 1998 as a visitor from Georgia with a three month visa. He overstayed his visa and was placed in removal proceedings. So he is ineligible for asylum. This petition for review is limited to the question of whether Darchia is eligible for withholding of removal because of the likelihood of persecution or torture. Which was in opposition to the government. He testified that on several occasions he was beaten by police while he was attending Popular Front public meetings or rallies. He was again beaten with a rubber baton at a meeting on October 8. There was a fight between the Popular Front and the party in control of the government. Darchia was beaten. That he had to go to a hospital to have his shoulder relocated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0427p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She next brought a cause of action in state court that was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. That the Board's decision that Lillie Horton had no right to survivor benefits was not arbitrary or capricious as set forth in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Page 2 The facts in this pension dispute are uncontested. We are to determine whether the district court properly interpreted the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA3NjItYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0762-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We remand so that the BIA may determine whether these documents are authentic and whether they establish the existence of an official policy. Including parents such as Chen whose children were born abroad. Chen's sole claim for relief is that she fears forced sterilization if she is returned to her home city of Changle City. Both this Court and the BIA have concluded that the evidence previously available to support Chinese asylum applicants' claims of forced sterilization. Was inadequate to establish the existence of an official policy of forced sterilization on the part of any Chinese province or locality. Thus insufficient to show that the applicants were likely to face forced sterilization if returned to China. 274 76 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that the Aird Affidavit was insufficient to establish the existence of a policy of forced sterilization in China). 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that th