Jamal Ali Farah v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
- Decided
- November 14, 2003
- Docket
- 02-70252
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,889 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal depends on the credible establishment of the key elements of the asylum application — Kurniawan v. Gonzales (2005)
- holding that an adverse credibility determination on key elements of an asylum application forecloses relief on claims for asylum and withholding of removal — Calderon-Peralta v. Bondi (2025)
- holding that applicants who fail to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum automatically fail to satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal — Veronica Velasco Cervantes v. Eric H. Holder Jr. (2010)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
Petitioner, Jamal Ali Farah, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision denying his application for asylum and adopting the opinion of the immigration judge (“IJ”). The IJ had ordered Farah removed on the basis of the finding that Farah was not credible and had further ordered Farah permanently ineligible for any benefits under the immigration laws of the United States because his application was frivolous.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).
Statutes cited
Cite this
Jamal Ali Farah v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 348 F.3d 1153 (2003)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.