U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2002

The court held that the ALJ’s vocational hypothetical did not capture all of Burns’s documented intellectual limitations, so the step-five finding was not supported by substantial evidence and further proceedings were required.

The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of Okereke’s successive § 2255 motion because the narrow exception permitting resort to § 2241 did not apply to his Apprendi sentencing claim.

The court granted Gao’s petition for review and remanded because the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence and the judge failed to consider potentially corroborative evidence.

The court held that the PLRA’s in forma pauperis dismissal provision does not displace the rule requiring leave to amend a deficient complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.

The court held that Roche’s sponsorship of actively traded American Depositary Receipts constituted purposeful availment of the United States securities market, supporting personal jurisdiction under the nationwide-service provision for the federal securities claim.

The Third Circuit denied Tengiz Sevoian's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' refusal to reopen his removal proceedings so he could pursue a withholding-of-removal claim under the Convention Against Torture.

The court summarily affirmed dismissal of Cradle’s § 2241 petition because his challenge to the sentence fell within § 2255, and he did not show that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. A time bar and inability to satisfy § 2255’s procedural requirements did not make that remedy inadequate.