CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
ADRIAN IRINEO GALVEZ-BRAVO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. |
No. 24-3052 |
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A 206 154 327.
Decided and Filed: October 23, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; READLER and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Adrian Galvez-Bravo, a native and citizen of
Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Galvez-Bravo contends that the Board’s order ignored his core argument
and deviated from other Board decisions. While we have jurisdiction to review Galvez-Bravo’s
legal challenges to the Board’s order, we conclude that the Board engaged in reasoned
decisionmaking in denying his motion. Accordingly, we deny his petition for review. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: JASON ROBERT WYLIE; LEAH S. WYLIE,
Debtors.
___________________________________________
TIMOTHY J. MILLER, Trustee,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JASON ROBERT WYLIE; LEAH S. WYLIE,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 24-1321
|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 23-cv-10952—Mark A. Goldsmith, District Judge.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Nos. 20-bk-49216; 21-ap-04012—Thomas J. Tucker, Bankruptcy Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 23, 2024
Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
In this bankruptcy matter, the trustee sought to deny debtors Jason and Leah Wylie a
discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727, alleging that they transferred anticipated tax refunds from the
bankruptcy estate by applying overpayments to future tax liabilities instead of receiving refunds.
Following a bench trial, the bankruptcy court found that the Wylies transferred their anticipated
2019 tax refunds “with intent to hinder” the trustee and thus denied a discharge. The district
court reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court’s intent finding was clearly erroneous. We
agree with the district court and remand for the bankruptcy court to enter a discharge. |
|