25 I. & N. Dec. 657 - R-A-M’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Osborne v. Ohio · Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder · United States v. Daniels · Delgado v. Holder · Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The respondent was also found ineligible for asylum because his application was not timely filed and he did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances that would qualify him for an exception to the filing deadline. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(2), (4), (5) (2011). The respondent did not appeal the Immigration Judge’s decision regarding that aspect of his claim, so this issue is waived. See Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 , 913 n.12 (9th Cir. 2009).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“while an offense is more likely to be considered particularly serious if it is against a person,”
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.