finding no abuse of 11 discretion in the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen when 12 “evidence submitted by petitioner in support of her motion 13 was not ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse 14 credibility finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s 15 denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum application”
How later courts described this case
- finding no abuse of 11 discretion in the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen when 12 “evidence submitted by petitioner in support of her motion 13 was not ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse 14 credibility finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s 15 denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum application”
- stating that separate restroom facilities do not violate equal protection principles, because that “gender classification is justified by acknowledged differences” between men and women and is confirmed by “society’s undisputed approval of separate public rest rooms for men and women based on privacy concerns”
- noting “society’s undisputed approval of separate public restrooms for men and women based on privacy concerns” and explaining that “distinctions in any separate facilities provided for males and females may be based on real difference between the sexes, both in quality and quantity, so long as the distinctions are not based on stereotyped or generalized perceptions of differences”
- stating that the "inability to establish irreparable harm `is by itself a sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunc- tion'"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Notwithstanding this court’s holding in VMI, I question whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, a state can ever have a sufficiently important interest to justify expending public funds to maintain an institution that not only practices inequality, but celebrates it.
Nevertheless, being bound by VMI, I concur in the opinion. I heartily concur in the result.