# Kawashima v. Holder

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 4, 2010 · 615 F.3d 1043

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9436807

## Case

- **Full name:** Akio KAWASHIMA; Fusako Kawashima, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent; Akio Kawashima; Fusako Kawashima, AKA Fusako Nakajima, Petitioners, v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 4, 2010
- **Citations:** 615 F.3d 1043; 2010 WL 3025017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Graber, O'Scannlain, Leavy, Callahan, Wardlaw, Paez
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9436807

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the “BIA is not limited to only those documents which a court applying the modified categorical approach may review,” and remanding to the BIA so that it could determine, in the first instance, what evidence it may consider under the Nijhawan standard
- holding that unlike in criminal proceedings, “the BIA is not limited to only those documents which a court applying the modified categorical approach may review”
- acknowledging that Nijhawan permits an inquiry beyond the four corners of the record of conviction

## Opinion text

Dissent to Order by Judge GRABER; Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN.
ORDER
The opinion filed in this case on January 27, 2010, and published at 593 F.3d 979 , is withdrawn. A new opinion is filed contemporaneously with the filing of this order.
The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Callahan have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Leavy has so recommended.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9436807. Public record. Not legal advice.