Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 I&NDEC 599 - RIVERA

RIVERA’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
October 2024
most recently cited

8 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Iturribarria v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2003), Twum v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2005)

8 federal appellate ·

2001996200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252B (§ 242b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Cheng Fan Kwok v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Rios-Pineda · Lozada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Figeroa v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Reid v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “it increases our confidence in the validity of the particular claim, . . . it reduces the likelihood that an evidentiary hearing will be needed, . . . it serves our long-term interests in policing the immigration bar, [and it] protects against possible collusion between counsel and the alien client.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “not only serves to deter meritless claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but also highlights the standards which should be expected of attorneys who represent aliens in immigration proceedings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The statute does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain relief from an in absentia order. Thus, the `prejudice' component of our Lozada rule has not been extended to this context.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.