Case law

Zury Alvizuriz-Lorenzo v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2019

Standard of Review We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, including whether an alleged group qualifies as a “particular social group” under the INA. Gonzales v. U.S. … We follow the BIA’s interpretation of what constitutes a particular social group under the INA unless the interpretation is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law.

Fabiola Torres-Skair v. Medco Health Solutions of Hidden River, LC

595 F. App'x 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 2014

Clearly, if believed, the testimony in Holland proved that the plaintiff’s pregnancy was a motivating factor for the transfer decision. No similar comment is part of the record before us. … a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, a plaintiff may show that she was (1) pregnant; (2) qualified to do the job; (3) subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) treated differently than similarly situated

Maria Wambui Njenga v. U.S. Attorney General

216 F. App'x 963 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2007

Second, Njenga argues that she qualifies for withholding of removal because the one-year filing deadline does not apply in that regard, her women’s enterprise group qualified as a social group for the purposes of the INA … To establish asylum eligibility, the alien may establish, among other things, a “well-founded fear” that the statutorily listed factor--membership in a particular social group--will cause such future persecution. 8 C.F.R

Tian Feng Dong vs U.S. Attorney General

418 F. App'x 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant “must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political … In fact, the IJ clearly expressed that finding at least six different times in its March 9, 2009 oral decision—once before discussing Dong’s past persecution asylum claim and five times after that discussion.

United States v. Lakeya Sheonna Creech

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2018

Creech became qualified to receive SNAP benefits from the USDA. … Creech established to receive SNAP benefits. Throughout 2014 and 2015, law enforcement agents investigated Ms.

James Lee Spencer v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Center, Respondent

781 F.2d 1458 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1986

After this ruling, voir dire began and nineteen jurors tentatively qualified by the end of the day. The next morning, January 8, before voir dire resumed, Spencer filed a pro se motion challenging the jury array. … filed in the trial court, and this untimeliness would clearly preclude review of his constitutional claim on direct appeal from his conviction.

United States v. Desima James

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2018

To establish plain error, the defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. … Because James’s allocution on this point was not clearly related to his crimes, it was not plain error for the district court to attempt to redirect James’s statements. Id.

Izeddin Ali Yousef v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2020

Thus, to meet the burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, an alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground, or (2) a “well-founded fear … But they clearly involved holding himself out as an individual that he was not while purchasing goods, and there was no error in relying on those convictions as supporting his lack of credibility.

Larry D. Pinson v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2022

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, an Article I court established by the VJRA. Id. §§ 7251, 7252(a), 7266(a). In turn, decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims are appealable only to the U.S. … Pinson’s SF-95 relates only to the denial of medical care and benefits, which is “a classic veteran’s benefits claim . . . over which the district court clearly lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the VJRA.”

Gerald Anthony Coleman v. Harry K. Singletary, Robert A. Butterworth

30 F.3d 1420 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1994

The evidence establishes that Coleman was able to comprehend the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiving those warnings. … In common usage, the word "but" qualifies and limits preceding language. For example, according to Webster's, the word "but" typically means "except" and "except that."

Lucio Silva-Sieger v. U.S. Attorney General

145 F. App'x 658 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2005

To establish asylum eligibility, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a “well-founded fear” that the statutorily listed factor … The INA does not expressly define “persecution” for purposes of qualifying as a “refugee.” See INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

United States v. Fane Lozman

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

However, he faults the portion of the district court’s summary judgment order discussing whether his floating home qualifies as a “structure” under the RHA, an issue that Lozman does not raise on appeal … Here, the district court did not address any retali- ation or selective enforcement claim by Lozman because he did not clearly raise it before the district court.

MidAmerica C2L Incorporated v. Siemens Energy Incorporated

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Regarding an expert’s qualifications, we have explained that: we observe that experts may be qualified in various ways. … [O]ur caselaw plainly establishes that one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testi- mony.” 326 F.3d at 1341–42.

United States v. Mohamed Samir Abdelazz

144 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2005

Lawler’s first argument is that the district court clearly erred by determining that the loss attributable to him was $4,461,124. … The kind of food stamp fraud involved in this case qualifies as a specified unlawful activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D).

United States v. Shamarcus Brandon Nesbitt

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1075–76 (11th Cir. 2019) (concluding conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause). … Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 6 of 13 subsequent trial was substantially different, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to the issue, or (3) the previous decision was clearly

United States v. Wilkerson Estelan

156 F. App'x 185 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 28, 2005

Furthermore, during trial, the government sought to qualify Special Agent Richard Bonner, a special agent with the U.S. … Moreover, Estelan has not challenged Officer Hermanson’s credibility on appeal, and a review of the record does not show that the court clearly erred in making this finding.

Rhonda Lynn Nichols v. Commissioner, Social Security Administrations

679 F. App'x 792 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2017

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id. at 530, 110 S. Ct. at 891. … The ALJ must “clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight” to a treating physician’s opinion. See Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).

United States v. Jimmy Remy Fernetus

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2022

A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determina- tion, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. See id. … Gelin failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and that alone justified denying him relief. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237. Mr.

United States v. Jeffery Williams

331 F. App'x 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

Williams does not argue that any of the district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. … A gun need not be kept within arm’s reach of the drugs or drug paraphernalia to qualify as being possessed “in connection with” a drug crime. In United States v.

Landsman Packing Co., Inc. v. Continental Can Company, Inc.

864 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1989

This would be an unreasonable burden to impose on Continental, as the lessor, and clearly was not intended by the parties. 13 27 Second, Landsman itself demonstrates that expiration of the warranty did not eliminate all remedy … See McEntee, 45 N.Y. at 37 (noting that qualified refusal must be reasonable and in good faith); Holbrook, 24 Wend. at 176 (stating that refusal must be in good faith and based on reasonable excuse).