Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen
How Judge Antwerpen rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Antwerpen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Antwerpen
Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Van Antwerpen received a commission on May 24, 2004. Judge Van Antwerpen previously served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, commissioned there on December 9, 1987. Judge Van Antwerpen assumed senior status on October 23, 2006 and served until death on July 25, 2016.
How Judge Antwerpen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Brownawell v. Commissioner, he directed an award of benefits after finding the disability record sufficiently developed to resolve the claim.
“this Court reverses the decision of the District Court and remands with the direction to enter an order directing the payment of benefits.”
In Feng v. Attorney General, he rejected an adverse credibility finding that rested on the immigration judge’s unsupported speculation about pain.
“The IJ's disbelief that Feng would suffer physical pain nine years after the alleged sterilization is similarly speculation that is not based on any record evidence.”
Procedural preferences
Confines judicial review of agency action to the rationale the agency actually supplied.
“A reviewing court is powerless to decide in the first instance issues that an agency does not reach.”
In Ortiz-Flores’s sentencing appeal, he vacated an ambiguous supervised-release condition and remanded for clarification of the written judgment.
“Given this ambiguity, we believe it is appropriate to remand so that the District Court can clarify its condition of supervised release.”
Cautions
In Teagle v. DiGuglielmo, he affirmed because the petitioner had not established actual innocence, leaving the equitable-tolling question undecided.
“Because Teagle fails to establish a valid claim of actual innocence, we will affirm without deciding whether such a claim can equitably toll AEDPA’s statute of limitations.”
In Yu Gao v. Attorney General, he upheld the agency’s decision despite sparse legal analysis because substantial evidence supported the result.
“But notwithstanding the IJ’s spare legal analysis, we are nevertheless persuaded that the ultimate conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, we will affirm Rideout’s conviction and sentence.”
“we will affirm the sentence of the District Court.”
“Accordingly, we will affirm Davis’ conviction and sentence.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
“The decision of the District Court is therefore affirmed.”
“For these reasons, we will deny Singh’s petition for review.”
“Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court‟s sentence.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the March 31, 2004 judgment of the District Court.”
“for the reasons set forth below, we will deny the petition.”
A historical record
Judge Antwerpen no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.