Warner v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.3d 534 · 2004
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Vasha v. Gonzales (2005), Ndrecaj v. Mukasey (2008)
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. § 1231 (§ 241 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))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Reno v. Flores · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Carlos Castro-Cortez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Jose Luis Araujo
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Petitioner argues that his due process rights were violated by the fact that his exclusion order was reinstated under § 241(a)(5) without his being able to apply for any type of relief. Additionally, Warner believes the procedures associated with the reinstatement process, set forth in C.F.R. § 241.8, deny him procedural due process. Particularly, Petitioner Warner contends that he was denied a hearing before an immigration judge, denied a right to appeal to the BIA, the right to develop a record, representation by counsel, a right to request relief, and adequate notice of the government’s intended action, all in violation of his due process rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an order of removal includes 'an order of exclusion and deportation or an order of deportation' " (quoting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 309(d)(2), 110 Stat. 3009 -627) ). 5 This is an explicit exception to the general rule that matters within the Attorney General's discretion are unreviewable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii). 6 It is true that the Board also noted that "there is evidence in the record indicating that the respondent's passport may have been trafficked by terrorists,”
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.