For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Ma v. Ashcroft
Husband whose marriage was not legally registered with Chinese government because of his age, qualifies for asylum based on wife's persecution. 		Immigration May 11, 2004
U.S. v. Hovsepian
Court erroneously concluded that defendants are eligible for naturalization despite their criminal past. 		Immigration May 7, 2004
Thomas v. Ashcroft
Family relations may constitute particular social group for purposes of evaluating persecution alleged in asylum application. 		Immigration May 7, 2004
Andia v. Ashcroft
Immigration laws permit aliens to seek reopening of in absentia deportation order at any time on lack-of-notice grounds. 		Immigration May 7, 2004
U.S. v. Pallares-Galan
Violation of state's annoy and molest misdemeanor statute does not constitute aggravated felony for deportation purposes. 		Immigration May 6, 2004
Chen v. Ashcroft
Factual findings underlying immigration judge's adverse credibility determination were not supported by substantial evidence. 		Immigration May 6, 2004
Taha v. Ashcroft
Where alien failed to explain discrepancies between declaration and testimony, denial of asylum and withholding of removal are proper. 		Immigration May 6, 2004
Martinez-Garcia v. Ashcroft
Because Order to Show Cause wasn't filed prior to effective date of IIRIRA, petitioner wasn't eligible for suspension of deportation under pre-IIRIRA law. 		Immigration May 4, 2004
Damon v. Ashcroft
Immigration judge improperly ruled that petitioner's marriage to U.S. citizen was solely for purpose of avoiding deportation. 		Immigration May 4, 2004
Shivaraman v. Ashcroft
Date of admission for purposes of removal proceedings is date of lawful entry to United States, not date of adjustment of status. 		Immigration May 4, 2004
Barron v. John Ashcroft
Petitioner did not present due process claim at administrative hearing and therefore did not preserve issue for appeal. 		Immigration Apr. 12, 2004
Cheema v. INS
Denial of withholding of deportation cannot be sustained where there is no evidence that aliens are danger to security of United States. 		Immigration Mar. 17, 2004
Wang v. INS
Chinese national alleging persecution and forced sterilization is not entitled to asylum. 		Immigration Mar. 11, 2004
Arulampalam v. Ashcroft
Immigration judge made improper adverse credibility finding based on his difficultiy in understanding petitioner's reponses to questions. 		Immigration Feb. 17, 2004
Jahed v. INS
Iranian citizen being blackmailed by soldier from opposing political group has established case for political asylum. 		Immigration Jan. 27, 2004
Gonzalez v. INS
Immigrant who failed to produce visa was properly denied adjustment of status. 		Immigration Jan. 6, 2004
Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft
Petitioner has no settled expectation that he would be placed in deportation proceedings after applying for asylum. 		Immigration Dec. 4, 2003
Ordonez v. INS
Because oral notice to petitioner regarding impact of failing to voluntarily depart was inadequate, bar to suspension of deportation is inapplicable. 		Immigration Dec. 3, 2003
Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. United States
Because decision whether to issue immigrant investor visa is not discretionary, district court has jurisdiction to review. 		Immigration Nov. 18, 2003
Hernandez v. Ashcroft
Because abusive husband's acts of contrition, as part of cycle of violence, occurred in United States, petitioner suffered extreme cruelty in United States. 		Immigration Nov. 18, 2003
Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft
Immigration judge erred by relying solely on presentence report to determine alien committed deportable offense. 		Immigration Nov. 18, 2003
U.S. v. Ubaldo-Figueroa
Alien challenging his removal order made plausible claim that new immigration laws may not be applied retroactively. 		Immigration Nov. 6, 2003
Reyes-Melendez v. INS
Immigration judge failed to give alien full and fair hearing due to bias. 		Immigration Oct. 22, 2003
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Valerio
Defendant wasn't prejudiced by immigration judge's statement that defendant was ineligible for relief from deportation because prior conviction barred such relief. 		Immigration Oct. 22, 2003
Lo v. Ashcroft
Petitioner's failure to attend hearing due to ineffective assistance of counsel was exceptional circumstance requiring rescission of removal order. 		Immigration Oct. 21, 2003
Lema v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
INS may extend detention of removable alien who refuses to cooperate to secure travel documents. 		Immigration Oct. 21, 2003
Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft
Alien who failed to file appellate brief with Board of Immigration Appeals was properly denied relief. 		Immigration Oct. 16, 2003
Munoz v. Ashcroft
Alien who was brought illegally into United States when he was one year old is subject to removal. 		Immigration Oct. 16, 2003
U.S. V. Arenas-Ortiz
Defendant failed to provide supporting evidence that government engaged in selective prosecution of Hispanic males under 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. 		Immigration Oct. 15, 2003
People v. Totari
Court will consider whether alien who challenged convictions 13 years after they were entered exercised due diligence. 		Immigration Oct. 15, 2003
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.