Singh v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
361 F.3d 1152 · 2004
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Mamouzian v. Ashcroft (2004), Singh v. Ashcroft (2004)
16 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Martinez-Serrano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Koerner v. Grigas · Arulampalam v. Ashcroft · Toquero v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Elnager v. U.S. 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Summary dismissal of appeals — (i) Standards. The Board may summarily dismiss any appeal or portion of any appeal in any case in which: (A) The party concerned fails to specify the reasons for the appeal on Form EOIR-26 or Form EOIR-29 (Notices of Appeal) or other document filed therewith; (B) The only reason for the appeal specified by the party concerned involves a finding of fact or a conclusion of law that was conceded by that party at a prior proceeding; (C) The appeal is from an order that granted the party concerned the relief that had been requested; (D) The party concerned indicates on Form EOIR-26 or Form EOIR-29 that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the appeal and, thereafter, does not file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain his or her failure to do so, within the time set for filing; (E) The appeal does not fall within the Board’s jurisdiction, or lies with the Immigration Judge rather than the Board; (F) The appeal is untimely, or barred by an affirmative waiver of the right of appeal that is clear on the record; or (G) The appeal fails to meet essential statutory or regulatory requirements or is expressly excluded by statute or regulation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Singh v. Ashcroft“Singh’s appeal was explicitly denied pursuant to § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D). The language of the Order alluding to the IJ’s decision does not announce the basis for the Board’s disposition. When § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) is invoked, as it explicitly was here, the BIA dismisses the appeal for purely procedural reasons. The specific procedural infirmity that justifies a summary dismissal pursuant to § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) — failure to file a brief, or explain the failure to do so, within the time set for filing — is evident without considering the merits of the appeal. It makes no sense to suggest that the BIA would recognize that summary dismissal is appropriate, but nevertheless review the merits of the procedurally infirm appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Singh v. Ashcroft“because the government briefed it, and thus suffers no prejudice from [the petitioner's] failure to properly raise the issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ouch v. Holder
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.