Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
"Although the abuse-of-discretion standard is rigorous, our review convinces us that the BIA abused its discretion when it affirmed that the Maoists’ demands for money from KC did not constitute past persecution based on her political opinion. ... [T]he IJ—inexplicably—concluded that the Maoists did not act based on KC’s political activity, but extorted her exclusively for financial gain. This analysis suffers from a serious disconnection between the facts the IJ accepted and the legal conclusion he reached. Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s analysis without further explication, both to dismiss KC’s appeal and to deny reconsideration, the BIA’s decision likewise lacks “rational explanation.” Kechkar, 500 F.3d at 1084. Accordingly, we hold that the BIA abused its discretion and remand for further consideration."
KC v. Holder, Oct. 18, 2011 (unpub.)