Case law

MATELOT

18 I. & N. Dec. 334 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1982

Thus, the record clearly establishes that the applicant is excludable under section 212(a)(20) of the Act as an immigrant without a valid immigrant visa or other valid entry document. … Further, on this record we are unable to conclude that the questioning and possible arrest of the applicant by the Ton Ton Macoutes qualifies the applicant for asylum and section 243(h) relief, particularly when the contents

United States v. Hillier's Son Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

The cases are clearly distinguishable. The case of United States v. … The provision for “resins” in paragraph 1584 is similarly qualified.

R-A

22 I. & N. Dec. 906 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2004

In our judgment, it remains for the respondent to establish an evidentiary record from which we may reasonably infer that a qualifying motive led, at least in part, to the harm she suffered, and this she has failed to do. … The respondent’s political opinion opposing male domination and domestic violence imposed upon her by her husband is clearly stated in the record—both in her statements and her actions.

Christy, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 2019

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … A patent owner’s rights are qualified and specifically “[s]ubject to the provisions of [title thirty-five of the United States Code].” Id.; accord Oil States, 138 S.

Folk v. Commissioner

25 B.T.A. 599 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 24, 1932

The evidence adduced by the petitioner consists of a valuation report of a qualified oil engineer and of the oral testimony of such engineer. … After careful consideration of all the evidence, we think it falls short of establishing the full value asserted by the petitioner, but it does indicate clearly that the petitioner’s interest in the lease in question had

Service Bolt & Nut Co. Profit Sharing Trust v. Commissioner

78 T.C. 812 · United States Tax Court · May 20, 1982

While, as petitioners point out, a "silent partner” is not necessarily the same thing as a "limited partner,” we think the above example clearly demonstrates Congress’ intent to include exempt organizations’ distributive … We do not know, for example, if petitioners embarked on their elaborate scheme of establishing corporations, partnerships, and trusts on the advice of competent tax counsel, or even against such advice.

West Coast Meat Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp

197 F.2d 866 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1952

representing about 15% of the total production, it was believed that the Administrator's legal duty to provide relief was limited to those who historically belonged to that segment. (2) Administration of the subsidy program clearly … required establishment of a base period as a condition of eligibility.

PULA

19 I. & N. Dec. 467 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1987

We are satisfied from a review of the record that the applicant received a fair hearing and that his ex- cludability has been clearly established. … misunderstanding of the nature of the overseas refugee program A'7 Interim Decision #3033 and, most essentially, the criteria a person had to meet to even be considered for the program, much less to qualify

Standard Space Platforms Corp. v. United States

35 Fed. Cl. 505 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 1996

All documents marked as confidential would be limited to those same persons qualified to perform the initial review, i.e., outside counsel and staff and independent experts. … Thus, a party moving for a protective order bears the burden of establishing “good cause” in support of said motion.

Pollack v. Commissioner

47 T.C. 92 · United States Tax Court · Oct 28, 1966

On this record the answer appears clear to us that it did and that it therefore failed to qualify as a small business corporation. … On at least two occasions the principals executed instruments in which their stockholdings were clearly and prominently identified by class.

Cummins-Collins Foundation v. Commissioner

15 T.C. 613 · United States Tax Court · Nov 15, 1950

We are to determine whether this petitioner qualifies. … The facts set forth in our findings clearly show that the corpus of petitioner was invested in amply-secured mortgage notes of certain enterprises either owned or controlled by either some or all of the individuals who were

O-F-A-S

27 I. & N. Dec. 709 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2019

Decision #3970 meet the high burden of proof to qualify for withholding of removal. … Further, the Immigration Judge did not clearly err in finding that the respondent failed to establish that the Government of Guatemala is unwilling or unable to protect him from the men who threatened and beat him.

Reese v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 932 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

The additional words, “on the basis of well established medical principles” clearly refer to the distinction between well-established medical principles and medical judgment. … has not been established.

John v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 788 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2007

United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc) (“It is well established that statutes of limitations for causes of action against the United States, being conditions on the waiver of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional … Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 , 111 S.Ct. 453 , 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990), established the current law involving the doctrine of equitable tolling against the Government: A waiver of sovereign immunity “ ‘cannot

Eastern Marine, Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,491 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 18, 1986

The Government insists the March 26, 1985 order establishes that EMI was not a prevailing party and that this court is bound by the CAFC’s determination as the law of the case. … The standard for recovery under the Act is that a qualified “prevailing party” can recover attorneys fees and costs unless the United States can show its position was “substantially justified.”

United States v. Pan Pacific Textile Group, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 26, 2005

The responsibilities delegated by Tao and accepted by Juang clearly constituted the basis of an agency relationship between Juang and defendants. … In the instant case, defendants do not qualify for the exception, since they benefitted from Juang’s fraud.

Russell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2014

While a qualified expert may have been able to explain that such a connection is plausible, no such testimony is included in the record. b. … The child’s responsiveness to immune therapy, and her relative unresponsiveness to first line epileptic medications, suggest that her condition is related to a malfunction of the immune system by which an element of the immune

Limericks, Inc. v. Commissioner

7 T.C. 1129 · United States Tax Court · Nov 12, 1946

The presumption that such property is community property is well established in the law of Texas. … The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Stanley Imerman, 7 T. C. 1030 .

Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc. v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 561 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 5, 1987

Thus, a health care system has been established whereby the government, usually through a network of appointed fiscal intermediaries, 2 reimburses hospitals (providers) which provide health care services to qualified patients … The fund was established as a self-insuring trust fund for Florida health care providers. All Florida providers were effectively required to participate in the fund.

Informatics Corp. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 1998

Habib informed plaintiff that “[t]he successful SETA contractor must be eligible/qualified to perform on all orders. … Defendant does not dispute that, absent the OCI, plaintiff was a qualified offeror. Nor can defendant dispute that Ms.