Case law

Biru Chen v. U.S. Attorney General

181 F. App'x 951 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 26, 2006

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).

Championship Property LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2022

Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995) (explaining that the sections “must be read in pari materia . . . so that only re- mands based on grounds specified in [section] 1447(c) are immune from review under [section] 1447(d)”). … First, Bank of America and Carrington Mortgage have failed to establish that Coan fraudulently joined or misjoined them to this case.

Robert G. Raymond v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2019

Such opinion is clearly an overestimate of [Raymond’s] functional limitations. … English is a qualified specialist who treated Raymond for several years. Unfortunately, these things do not overcome the fact that Dr.

United States v. Campa

529 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2005

Hernandez raises the denial of a motion to dismiss Count III based on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act jurisdictional grounds and insufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy to commit murder. … Some venire members were clearly biased against Castro and the Cuban government.

Aviation One of Florida, Inc. v. Airborne Insurance Consultants (PTY), LTD

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

Plaintiffs have “a qualified right to conduct jurisdictional discovery.” Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 n.7 (11th Cir. 1999). … Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered abandoned).

David Watkins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2025

In considering these statements, we express no opinion on whether or not such narrative statements qualify as medical opinions for purposes of the regulations. … A claimant’s subjective complaints standing alone are insufficient to establish a disability, but such statements are considered as part of the overall disability determination. 20 C.F.R.

United States v. Ingrid Arneth

294 F. App'x 448 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

However, “a defendant must possess the firearm solely for sporting purposes to qualify for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2).” United States v. Caldwell, 431 F.3d 795, 800 (11th Cir. 2005). … The undisputed facts in this case established that Leist possessed a firearm in connection with his scheme to defraud the City of Rockmart.

United States v. Domenico Rabuffo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 20, 2017

In 2006 and 2007, the year the loans were originated, SunTrust Mortgage was not a qualifying “financial institution” under 18 U.S.C. § 20. … In so ruling, the court did not clearly err.

United States v. Mynor Rolando Herrera Aguilar

286 F. App'x 716 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2008

The district court also rejected Sanchez-Salazar’s argument that the government needed to show a nexus between the United States and the charged conduct to establish jurisdiction. … On appeal, Sanchez-Salazar does not challenge the district court’s finding that his first mate position qualified him for the enhancement.

United States v. Trumaine Muller

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

A district court abuses its discretion when it “applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error in judgment.” United States v. … He argued that the government failed to lay the proper foundation as to whether Bisplinghoff was qualified to testify about the cell site information, and that the government needed to present an expert.

Jean Saint-Jour v. U.S. Attorney General

341 F. App'x 592 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2009

The IJ further observed that Saint-Jour’s application was subject to the REAL ID Act of 2005, which required Saint-Jour to provide documentation to clearly establish that he would be persecuted if he were … Finally, to qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must establish standards more stringent that those for asylum eligibility. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1232-33.

Cranford v. Nevada Department of Corrections

398 F. App'x 540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2010

Code Ann. r. 18 33-501.301(6)(c), clearly demonstrated that Cranford had reasonable access to Nevada legal materials. … post-conviction motion was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the fact 2 While Nevada law excepts limited categories of motions from its general rule that a post-conviction collateral attack qualifies

United States v. Tamara Jeune

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2021

So clearly, someone else was using his EFIN. … The government must first establish the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.

United States v. Frank J. Teers

591 F. App'x 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2014

First, to the extent that Teers argues that the agents’ violation of the IRS policy manual should have per se resulted in exclusion, this argument is clearly foreclosed by Caceres, in which the Supreme Court noted that … We review for clear error, as a finding of fact, a district court’s determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment under the Guidelines. United States v.

Stacey Humphreys v. Warden GDP

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2024

Evans, 703 F.3d at 1325 (citation and internal quotation marks omit- ted); see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 407 (a state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established law if the state … But on this record, we cannot say that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable applica- tion of clearly established federal law as determined by the Su- preme Court

Myrna Coromoto Olivo De Aviles v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

212 F. App'x 823 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

Here, the subjective component of the well-founded fear inquiry clearly has been satisfied by Olivo’s testimony that she genuinely fears persecution. … Thus, “[i]f an applicant is unable to meet the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, he is generally precluded from qualifying for either asylum or withholding of deportation.”

United States v. Ramon Santos

397 F. App'x 583 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2010

The evidence at trial established the following: Ana Fonseca and Felix Calas opened Better Health Consulting Clinic Corporation in 2004. … During closing argument, defense counsel argued that the witnesses testified with the hopes of reducing their own sentences or with immunity from prosecution.

United States v. Johnny Lewis Lamb

214 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). … “A defendant who enters a not guilty plea makes intent a material issue which imposes a substantial burden on the government to prove intent, which it may prove by qualifying Rule 404(b) evidence absent affirmative steps

Diana Maria Tenorio Londono v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

206 F. App'x 897 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2006

And, since Londono could not establish that she was entitled to asylum, she could not, by implication, meet the higher withholding-of-removal standard. … Participation in ACBC, though, is clearly not a characteristic Londono couldn’t have changed, like her gender or her skin color or her nationality.

Robert Dewey Glock v. Harry K. Singletary

65 F.3d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1995

Wainwright, 804 F.2d 1182 (11th Cir.1986), 7 illustrates even more clearly that in 1986 Espinosa’s result was susceptible to debate among reasonable minds. … The Supreme Court rejected this argument: “A rule that qualifies under this exception must not only improve accuracy, but also alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding