LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
CA9 on BIA 'Shell Game' - Zhao v. Holder

"Absent some reasoned explanation appropriate to the particular circumstances, the BIA simply cannot shift its proof requirements. To do so is to subject petitioners to an administrative shell game. Therefore, under the circumstances presented by this case, it was contrary to law and an abuse of...

CA2 on Evidence: Indradjaja v. Holder

"The BIA denied Indradjaja’s motion to reopen because she had not submitted an affidavit in support of the new evidence she proffered, and because she had not submitted copies of the sources on which her expert relied, it refused to consider the expert report supporting her motion. By attaching...

CA3 on Meaningful Consideration of Evidence by BIA: Zhu v. Attorney General

"Because the BIA’s opinion did not reflect meaningful consideration of much of the evidence that Zhu submitted in support of her motion, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the order denying the motion to reopen, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings." - Zhu v. Attorney...