Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 371 F.3d 718 - Gurung v. Ashcroft

Gurung v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

371 F.3d 718 · 2004

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
August 2020
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Infanzon v. Ashcroft (2004), Maghradze v. Gonzales (2006)

16 federal appellate · 1 district ·

350200420102020decided

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. § 1229 (§ 239 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. § 1252 (§ 242 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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Hang Kannha Yuk v. Ashcroft · Alexis Anin v. Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service · Salta 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Considerations on a motion to reopen differ from those relevant to the holding of an in absentia hearing. A motion to reopen focuses on whether the alien actually received notice, rather than on whether the INS sent sufficient notice to the proper address.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] petitioner must present `substantial and probative evidence . . . demonstrating that there was improper delivery or that nondelivery was not due to the respondent's failure to provide an address where he could receive mail.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice”
    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.