Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

ERISA Action Against Egyptian Government Entities, and Immigration Case

By FindLaw Staff on May 10, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Partap v. Holder, No. 05-75777, involved a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of petitioner's claim for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand.  The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the petition, on the grounds that 1) petitioner's unborn daughter did not meet the statutory definition of "child" in 8 U.S.C. section 1101(b)(1) at the time of his hearing before the immigration judge, and the BIA therefore did not err in determining that the unborn child was not a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal; and 2) because petitioner did not tender any evidence showing "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship," the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter a remand order.

Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt v. Lasheen, No. 08-15486, concerned an ERISA action against various Egyptian government entities and persons based on the denial of health benefits.  The court of appeals affirmed in part the district court's determination that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the Egyptian defendants under both the commercial activities exception and the waiver exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, on the ground that entering into an agreement with a U.S. plan administrator and allegedly breaching that agreement constituted commercial activity by Egypt.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard