245 F. Supp. 2d 446 - Bezmen v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Zadvydas v. Davis · Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairss v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association · Juan Ramon Sol v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Vinodbhai Bholidas Patel v. Charles Zemski
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he regulation fails to impose anytime parameters for the resolution of the appeal, nor does it identify any objective that the approval be expedited. It allows the INS to unilaterally override a decision of an [Immigration Judge] ... The government is unable to direct this Court to any requirement ... that the BIA and the Attorney General rule on such appeals within any particular time period. Such a process without ascertainable end points during which [Petitioner] remains detained, results in an indefinite detention under 8 C.F.R. § 3.19 (i)(2) limited only by the BIA’s and the Attorney General’s decision of when to decide.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) Stay of custody order pending Service appeal-— 2) Automatic stay in certain cases. In any case in which the district director has determined that an alien should not be released or has set a bond of $10,000 or more, any order of the immigration judge authorizing release (on bond or otherwise) shall be stayed upon the Service’s filing of a Notice of Service Intent to Appeal Custody Redetermination (Form EOIR-43) with the immigration court within one business day of the issuance of the order, and shall remain in abeyance pending decision of the appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The stay shall lapse if the Service fails to file a notice of appeal with the Board in accordance with § 3.38 within ten business days of the issuance of the order of the immigration judge. If the Board authorizes release (on bond or otherwise), that order shall be automatically stayed for five business days. If, within that five-day period, the Commissioner certifies the Board’s custody order to the Attorney General pursuant to § 8.1(h)(1) of this chapter, the Board’s order shall continue to be stayed pending the decision of the Attorney General.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“effectively metamorphose the custody of any deportable alien into detention without effective bona fide individualized bond determination for an indeterminate period of time.” See id. at 450 (emphasis added). Like the Ashley court, the Bezmen court did not cite the separate regulation governing the timeliness of BIA decision-making, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (e)(8)(i), which, inter alia, establishes”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.