Awe v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.3d 509 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem (2012), Singh v. Ashcroft (2004)
14 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. § 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. § 1227 (§ 237 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Samer Mansour v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Steven J. Holman and Karen L. Holman v. State of Indiana and Indiana Department of Transportation · Balazoski 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e do not see anything in the record here to suggest that the BIA inappropriately exercised its power in summarily dismissing Awe's appeal under § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D),[ 6 ] and we therefore affirm its decision on these grounds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eta v. Ashcroft · Kokar v. Gonzales“If, as Awe suggests, the BIA intended [the “upon review of the record”] statement alone to serve as a determination on the merits, we would likely find such a decision inadequate. But without speculating as to what exactly the BIA meant by this particular sentence in Awe’s case, we conclude that the BIA’s concentration in the rest of its opinion on its reasons for dismissing the case under § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) indicates that it was not making a determination on the substantive merits of Awe’s case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Singh v. Ashcroft“the record indicates that the appellant did not file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain the failure to do so, within the time set for filing. Accordingly, the appeal is summarily dismissed under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kokar v. Gonzales
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.