Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 378 F.3d 471 - Assaad v. Ashcroft

Assaad v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

378 F.3d 471 · 2004

Citation profile

127
cited by 127 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2024
most recently cited

42 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 127 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Kucana v. Holder (2010), Yu Zhao v. Gonzales (2005)

42 federal appellate ·

840200420102020decided

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 Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat · LOZADA · Efe v. Ashcroft

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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Petitioner's] motion to reopen does not allege a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process because `the failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any . . . decision or action of the Attorney General the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress explicitly granted federal courts the power to review final orders of removal in § 1252(a)(1), and implicit in this jurisdictional grant is the authority to review orders denying motions to reopen any such final order. Yet, just as our power to review a final order is circumscribed by § 1252(a)(2)’s various jurisdiction-stripping provisions, our jurisdiction to entertain an attack on that order mounted through filing of a motion to reopen is equally curtailed.”
    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.