Case law

ACOSTA HIDALGO

24 I. & N. Dec. 103 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2007

Furthermore, neither the Board nor the Immigration Judges have jurisdiction to determine an alien’s eligibility 4 The respondent correctly points out that in Nolan v. … Apokarina v. Ashcroft, supra, at 415 (quoting Shomberg v.

Soyini v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 540 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 12, 1991

Although the rating board used language which, if used today, would be held to be incorrect, it is clear that the rating board did not reopen veteran’s claim. See Thompson v. … As such, under Manio v.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,408 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 23, 1987

To support the contention that the Board’s application of a novel theory requires reversal, plaintiffs cite to a number of cases. See National Labor Relations Board v. … In United States Steel Corp. v.

Bayfront Metal Products, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Feb 23, 2017

SPE4A4- l 3-V-F04 l ) SPE4A4-14-V-F270 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Jeffrey R. Portko, Esq. … Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed from the Board's docket without prejudice.

OLIVARES

23 I. & N. Dec. 148 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2001

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Under United States v. … As explained above, the Board has spoken on the matter. See Matter of Puente, supra; accord Tapia-Garcia v.

Peterson v. United States

292 F.2d 892 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1961

Cl. 1 (1957) and Egan v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 1 (1958). … The first of these decisions is that of Boruski v. United States, C. Cls. No. 417-56, decided October 9,1957. * * * The second decision is the case of Egan v. United States, C. Cls.

Richard Bruhn v. Department of Agriculture

2016 MSPB 42 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 22, 2016

Ferdon v. U.S. … See Fisher v.

Albert Lea Packing Co. v. Commissioner

24 B.T.A. 376 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 21, 1931

Brown, Esq., for the petitioner. J. M. Leinenkugel, Esq., and T. G. Histon, Esq., for the respondent. … See 25 R.C.L. 10; Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272 ; *1683 Townsend v. Little, 109 U.S. 504 ; United States v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255 ; McKee v. United States, 164 U.S. 287 ; Carroll v.

Marsh v. Commissioner

38 B.T.A. 878 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 14, 1938

United States v. White Dental Manufacturing Co., 274 U. S. 398 ; Brown v. Commissioner, supra. … Brown v. Commissioner, supra; Wesch v. Helburn, 5 Fed. Supp. 581.

Sawyer v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 860 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1989

When an eligibility determination has been committed to the expertise of a specialized review board, the military correction boards review its decisions. See Muse v. … Citing Sorrough v.

United States v. American Bead Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

The board then proceeds to review the cases upon the subject, and on the authority of United States v. Weinberg ( 139 Fed., 1006 ), which followed the case of Lorsch v. … If so, the board was in error, as we held in Cohn v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T.

Intel Singapore, Ltd. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 644 · United States Court of International Trade · May 4, 1995

The court explores, rather, the fundamental capabilities of the Boards once such instructions — like other types of software — are in place. See generally Nord Light, Inc. v. … Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 25, 29 , C.D. 4784 (1979)).) Intel defines “machine” out of context.

Huffman Construction, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Oct 23, 2025

See Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. … ); Lipe v.

Meyer v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 372 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 2016

See Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1355–57 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Santiago v. United States, 75 Fed. … Verbeck v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 420, 424 (2014) (citing Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Helferty v. United States, 113 Fed.

Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. v. United States

639 F.2d 732 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 17, 1980

Corp. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 149 , 535 F. 2d 62 (1976); Specialty Assembling & Packing Co. v. United States, 156 Ct. … Corp. v. United States, supra; Specialty Assembling and Packing Co. v. United States, supra.

Garlejo v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 619 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 22, 1992

The Court’s fourth question asked the Secretary to address the effect of the Board’s failure to rule on the credibility of appellant’s lay evidence as required by Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 24 (1991). … Therefore, absent some showing sufficient to present a well grounded claim based upon unemployability, the issue simply was not before the Board.” Appellee at 8, 9. In Myers v.

George E. Hall, Jr. v. Louis B. Taylor

332 F.2d 844 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

Wemple et al. v. P[ei]ree et al., 22 CCPA 1064, *847 1935 CD 428, 75 F.2d 998 , 25 USPQ 37 and Becket v. Arness, 27 CCPA 1251, 1940 CD 589, 112 F.2d 1011 , 46 USPQ 48 . … ’s reliance on this court’s decision in Den Beste v.

11-27 082

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 5, 2015

See Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999); Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 421 (1995). As mentioned above, the Board finds that a 20 percent rating is warranted for the Veteran's low back disability. … See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 339 (1996). There is a three-step inquiry for determining entitlement to an extraschedular rating. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App, 111 (2008).

Derecktor v. United States

128 F. Supp. 136 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1954

By section 9 it was required that any vessel purchased, chartered, or leased from the Board should be eligible for American registry, and should be operated only under such registry, “unless otherwise authorized by the Board … It was also prowled, at p. 731: * * * No such vessel, without the approval of the board, shall be transferred to a foreign registry or flag, or sold; nor, except under regulations prescribed by the board, be chartered or

United States v. Borgfeldt

7 Ct. Cust. 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

See Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 556 ; T. D. 31552); United States v. Myers ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 257 ; T. D. 31301); Salomon v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 92 ; T. … D. 35503); Edwards’s Lessee v. Darby ( 25 U. S., 206 ); Pennoyer v. McConnaughy ( 140 U. S., 1 ); Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board ( 206 U. S., 474 ); United States v. Midwest Oil Co. ( 236 U. S., 459 ).