LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
CA9 on Clear Error: Ridor v. Holder

"Ridore argues that the BIA acted beyond the scope of its authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3) by reviewing the IJ’s findings under a de novo rather than clear error standard and improperly engaging in its own factfinding. We agree that the BIA committed legal error in vacating the...

CA9 on Withholding, Philippines, Sexual Orientation, Clear Error: Vitug v. Holder

"Dennis Vitug, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order vacating an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) grant of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”...

CA9 on Clear Error: Zumel v. Lynch

"Assuming that intent under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V)(b) is a factual question, the BIA here erred in failing to apply the clear error standard of review to the IJ’s resolution of the intent issue. ... Because the BIA did not acknowledge the proper standard of review, ignored facts found...