Every decision we've summarized — searchable, filterable, neutral.
The Seventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the timeliness of an asylum application where the petitioner failed to present the issue adversarially, adhering to precedent that such determinations are factual and discretionary.
The Eighth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of an immigration order because the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held that the petitioners did not meaningfully challenge key determinations regarding nexus and government protection before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and found the petitioner's evidence insufficient to support a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal between Nike and Lululemon. The parties agreed to the dismissal, and each side will bear its own costs.
The First Circuit reversed a district court dismissal of an indictment against an unlawfully present alien charged with firearm possession, holding that the statute aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by a pro se plaintiff as untimely. However, the court directed the district court to treat an emergency motion as a timely notice of appeal from an earlier order.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se complaint filed by an inmate challenging the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denial of mandatory supervision. The court held that the Board satisfied due process requirements and did not act arbitrarily in denying release.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a petition for review challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of a motion to reopen. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a sua sponte regulatory reopening because no legal standard exists to judge the agency's discretionary decision.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion by the Federal Public Defender to withdraw from representing the defendant. The court dismissed the appeal after finding no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal after the appointed Federal Public Defender filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California. The court found no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review in the case.
