M-R-A’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions (2018), Hernandez v. Lynch (2016)
10 federal appellate ·
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. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252B (§ 242b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Alexis Anin v. Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service · Salta v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Alrefae v. Chertoff · Sembiring v. Gonzales · Lopes v. Gonzales
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the respondent’s affidavit; (2) affidavits from family members or other individuals who are knowledgeable about the facts relevant to whether notice was received; (3) the respondent’s actions upon learning of the in absentia order, and whether due diligence was exercised in seeking to redress the situation; (4) any prior affirmative application for relief, indicating that the respondent had an incentive to appear; (5) any prior application for relief filed with the Immigration Court or any prima facie evidence in the record or the respondent’s motion of statutory eligibility for relief, indicating that the respondent had an incentive to appear; (6) the respondent’s previous attendance at Immigration Court hearings, if applicable; and (7) any other circumstances or evidence indicating possible nonreceipt of notice.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“We find that it is proper to apply some presumption of receipt to a Notice to Appear or Notice of Hearing sent by regular mail when the notice was properly addressed and mailed according to normal office procedures. This presumption, however, is weaker than that accorded to notice sent by certified mail.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ba v. Holder · Dorce v. Garland“We have recognized that '[a] letter properly addressed, stamped and mailed is presumed to have been duly delivered to the addressee.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dorce v. Garland
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.