Cases

*703 OPINION OF THE COURT Stein, J. In this appeal challenging convictions for driving while intoxicated, defendant argues that the Confrontation Clause was violated where the police officer who testified at trial regarding defendant’s breath test directly observed the test, but di

OPINION OF THE COURT Rivera, J. Defendant challenges his conviction on grounds that his confession was an involuntary product of untoward psychological pressure by police, and consequent fatigue induced during a prolonged interrogation, extended, in part, by unnecessary prearraignment delay, manufactured for th

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Lin Ni, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the February 4, 2005 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Lin Ni, No. A70 530 730 (B.I.A. Feb.

677 F.3d 130 (2012) HUI LIN HUANG and Zeng Yong Zhou, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent. Docket Nos. 10-1263-ag(Lead), 11-3584-ag(Con). United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Submitted: December 1, 2011. Decided: March 27, 2012. *131 Richard Tarzia, Belle Mea

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Lin Ni, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the February 4, 2005 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Lin Ni, No. A70 530 730 (B.I.A. Feb.

SUMMARY ORDER Bao Di Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 31, 2006 order of the BIA affirming' the November 9, 2005 order of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla, denying his motion to reopen his proceedings to file a successive asylum application. In re Bao Di Lin, No. A29 879 052 (B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2006), aff'g No. A29 879 052 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Nov.

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Hai Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the November 6, 2008, decision of the BIA affirming the May 7, 2002, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See In re Hai Lin, No. A. 78 208 387 (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2003), aff'g No. A. 78 203

SUMMARY ORDER Bao Di Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 31, 2006 order of the BIA affirming' the November 9, 2005 order of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla, denying his motion to reopen his proceedings to file a successive asylum application. In re Bao Di Lin, No. A29 879 052 (B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2006), aff'g No. A29 879 052 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Nov.

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Jin Song Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 9, 2004 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. In re Jin Song Lin, No. A 29 790 366 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the *62underlying facts and procedural history in this case. <

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Xian Yue Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 22, 2005 order of the BIA affirming the January 20, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Adam Opaciuch denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xing Yue Lin,2 No.

511 F.3d 110 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lin GUANG and Shi Yong Wei, Defendants-Appellants. Docket Nos. 05-4724-cr(L), 05-6171-cr(CON). United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: March 12, 2007. Decided: December 13, 2007. *111 *112

SUMMARY ORDER Yan Ping Lin, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sarah Burr’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2001). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. When the BIA summarily affirms the de

SUMMARY ORDER Jin He Lin petitions for review of the BIA’s decision that affirms Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. In re Jin He Lin, No. A 73 164 833 (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2003), aff'g, No. A 73 164 833 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 15, *681998). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the underly

GARCIA-GREGORY, District Judge. Mei Guan Lin (“Lin”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his application for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), and denial of his request for relief under the

SUMMARY ORDER Zhu Lin, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA’s April 2004 decision affirming Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s conclusion that a petitioner is not eligible for relief and, without rejectin

SACK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellee Don Juan Britt, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against various New York State Department of Correctional Services and correctional facility officials. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the Unit

Qun Lin v. Jose Reyes Cruz, et al. No. 2944, Sept. Term, 2018 Opinion by Leahy, J. Testimony>Credibility Determination>Bench Trial When weighing the credibility of witnesses and resolving conflicts in the evidence, “the fact-finder has the discretion to decide which evidence to credit and which to reject.” Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Connor, 136 Md. App. 91, 136, (2000). “In this regard, it may believe part of a particular witness’s testimony but disbelieve other parts.” Id. Mr. Chen’s deposit

Filed 11/14/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GUO ZHANG CHEN, ) No. BV 033055 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) Pasadena Trial Court ) v.

People v Lin Li (2022 NY Slip Op 04565) People v Lin Li 2022 NY Slip Op 04565 Decided on July 13, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. <

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION ROBERTSON, District Judge. This case presents claims of discrimination by Hispanic farmers nationwide who in various ways were denied USDA credit-and noncredit benefits over a period of some twenty years. Before the Court for the second time is the question of whether the case may be certified as a class action. When the question was first presented, by a