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.