Jaswant Lal Shakuntla Lal Rikesh Lal v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Jaswant LAL; Shakuntla Lal; Rikesh Lal, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Opinion
ORDER The Government’s petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. We amend the Opinion filed July 3, 2001, and appearing at page 998.
Add a footnote at p. 1003 at the end of the last sentence before section “a.” (“Such a requirement is an untenable interpretation of the exception.”):
“The government in its petition for rehearing before the panel states ‘[W]e do not seek to disturb the relief that this court awarded to petitioners, nor do we seek to disturb the essential judicial underpinnings for that relief (supra note 3).’ Petition For Rehearing at 7. It requests simply that we not hold that the BIA has changed its interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (b)(i)(ii) (1999) to require that ongoing disability be shown. Rather, the BIA continues to see it as a factor to be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances and simply should have granted relief in this case after reviewing all the factors. We accept the government’s view that the BIA did not interpret the regulation to require ongoing disability.”
Add a footnote to p. 1019 of Judge O’Seannlain’s dissent, at the end of the sentence beginning “Rather than establishing ... ,” as follows:
“Indeed, the government states precisely this view in its petition for rehearing, as the majority acknowledges. Maj. op. at n. 3.”
*1149 No further petition for rehearing will be entertained.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that the humanitarian asylum exception “does not require the demonstration of an ongoing physical or emotional disability”)
-
(holding petitioner eligible for asylum on the basis of severe past persecution under the humanitarian exception, even though he suffered from no continuing disability)
-
(“To suddenly change course and add this requirement now is an 10 arbitrary act that is impermissible and, even giving the BIA the deference it is due, should be 11 overturned.”)
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Khadija Mohammed v. Alberto R
- Hang Kannha Yuk v. Ashcroft
- Alireza Rabie Jahed Maryam Feizi Labon Rabie Jahed Tansagol Rabie Jahed v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
- Douglas Cardenas Elizabeth Napa Douglas Omar Cardenas Sharon Cardenas Cheryl Cardenas v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
- Tarlock Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.
- Sierra Club v. United States Department of Transportation
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.