Busquets-Ivars v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.3d 1008 · 2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Molina-Estrada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Rosenthal v. Walker · In re Longardner & Associates, Inc. · Salta v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · McPartlin v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“agencies are departments, agencies, corporations, establishments, commissions, committees... authorized to use penalty mail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) failed to prove service of notice. The Busquets petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) were ordered removed in absentia. The Busquets contend that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (”
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.