Ramani v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.3d 554 · 2004
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice (2006), Khalili v. Holder (2009)
36 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Denko v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Guang Run Yu v. Ashcroft · Wayne Thomas Ahlers and Nina Ahlers v. Ronald J. Schebil · Perkovic v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Theodoropoulos 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only claims properly presented to the BIA and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) to ensure that the [DHS], as the agency responsible for construing and applying the immigration laws and implementing regulations, has had a full opportunity to consider a petitioner’s claims; (2) to avoid premature interference with the agency’s processes; and (3) to allow the BIA to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“13 Bah argues that the BIA's brief dismissal of her appeal constituted a violation of her due process rights. However, the BIA has the authority to affirm, without opinion, or issue a brief opinion, in any case in which the Board member concludes that there is no legal or factual basis for reversal of the decision by the Service or the IJ. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1. 1 This provision permits the BIA to issue summary affirmances in immigration appeals meeting certain criteria. Bah suggests that the use of streamlining ignores the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bah v. Gonzales
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.