Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Supplemental Request For Attorneys' Fees In a Civil Rights Case Against a City Reversed, Plus Immigration Law Matters

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on August 06, 2010 5:45 PM

Victor v. Holder, 09-1982, concerned a Pakistani individual's petition for review of a denial of his motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of his family's application for asylum and related relief.  In denying the petition, the court held that, although section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not limit appellate courts' review of motions to reopen and reconsider to constitutional claims or questions of law, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Kucana v. Holder, 130 S.Ct. 827 (2010), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motions to reconsider and reopen.

  • Robinson v. City of Harvey, 09-2434, concerned a challenge to the district court's award of $277,462 in attorneys' fees against a city, in plaintiff's supplemental request for attorneys' fees, seeking compensation for legal work performed to defend against the city's appeal of a 2002 jury verdict against the city and a police officer.  In reversing, the court held that the first two items on plaintiff's supplemental bill concern legal work that affected his legal rights regarding the police officer, of which the city is not responsible.  Further, plaintiff's request for supplemental fees is untimely as under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(i), a litigant has 14 days from entry of judgment to seek an award of fees and plaintiff took more than 1,250 days.

    Aguilar-Mejia v. Holder, 09-2673, concerned a Mexican citizen's petition for review of BIA's removal order.  In dismissing the petition, the court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the removal order as it was based, among other reasons, on petitioner's prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance.  The court also held that petitioner did not preserve the individual persecution issue that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against individuals infected with AIDS.

    Related Resources:

    Find a Lawyer

    More Options