Legal Opinion
G-D
Board of Immigration Appeals
Decided July 1, 1999No. ID 3418PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Interim Decision #3418 In re G-D-, Respondent Decided November 23, 1999 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals In order for a change in the law to qualify as an exceptional situation that merits the exercise of discretion by the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen or reconsider a case sua sponte, the change must be fundamental in nature and not merely an incremental development in the state of the law. Royal F. Berg, Esquire, Chicago, Illinois, for respondent Karen E. Lundgren, Assistant District Counsel, for the Immigration and…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- The Japanese Immigrant CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- M-E-V-GBoard of Immigration Appeals · 2014
- Sameh Sami S. Khouzam, A/K/A Sameh Sami Khouzam, A/K/A Sameh S. Khouzam, A/K/A Sameh Khouzam v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- MacArio Bonilla v. Loretta E. LynchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Li Yong Zheng v. United States Department of Justice, Attorney General GonzalesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Eunice Oritsegbeyiwa Azanor v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.