Tsayo Cyrille Lonyem v. U.S. Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
352 F.3d 1338 · 2003
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Ali v. U.S. Attorney General (2006), Tang v. U.S. Attorney General (2009)
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
Relies on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Chen Yun Gao v. Ashcroft · Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney General · Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Attorney General
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish due process violations in removal proceedings, aliens must show that they were deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the asserted errors caused them substantial prejudice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The phrase “serious illness” is not defined in the statute or its implementing regulations. The BIA has suggested several ways in which such an illness may be demonstrated. “A medical professional ... comment[ ], in detail, on the severity of the illness of the alleged. In the alternative, [such a] claim may [be] substantiated through detailed affidavits from the respondent, roommates, friends, and co-workers, attesting to the extent of his disabilities and the remedies used.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lonyem did not indicate that he made any effort to contact the Immigration Court on the day of his removal hearing to alert the IJ of his absence and to explain the reasons for it. Giving such notice of one’s unavailability is a minimal and logical step that, if not taken, is a factor which tends to undermine a claim of exceptional circumstances.”
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.