Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Negusie v. Gonzales, 06-60193 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-60193 Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 13, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 13, 2009 No. 06-60193 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk DANIEL GIRMAI NEGUSIE, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States (A15 575 924) Before KING, HIGGINBOTHM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. _ (2009), the Supreme Court of the United States reverse
More
           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                            April 13, 2009
                                     No. 06-60193
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

DANIEL GIRMAI NEGUSIE,

                             Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                             Respondent




            On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
                               (A15 575 924)


Before KING, HIGGINBOTHM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       In Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. ___ (2009), the Supreme Court of the United
States reversed our judgment in this case, which affirmed the judgment of the
Board of Immigration Appeals. The Court remanded with instructions for the
Board to interpret the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), consistent with
its opinion. The judgment of the Board is therefore VACATED, and the case is
remanded to it for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
       VACATED.

       *
         Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer