Haider v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
438 F.3d 902 · 2006
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Gomez-Palacios v. Holder (2009), Singh v. Holder (2011)
17 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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))
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. Estrada-Trochez · Dominguez v. United States Attorney General · Gurung 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simply requires that an alien be provided written notice of his hearing; it does not require that the [Notice to Appear] served on Haider satisfy all of § 1229(a)(1)'s notice requirements.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he District Court concluded that it was "left with the inescapable conclusion that [Haiderj’s challenge to the constitutionality of the notice provided to him, is, in effect, a challenge to the ultimate Order of Removal.” Report & Recommendation at 8. The Petition for Review that Haider filed with this Court vested in us "the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, Div. B, Title I, § 106(a), 119 Stat. 231 , 310 (2005) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5)). We agree with the District Court that Haider makes the same argument, i.e., that the in absentia removal order was invalid due to lack of notice, in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that he makes in his Petition for Review. Because Haider's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus does nothing more than attack the IJ’s removal order, our Court "shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review.” Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court rightly complied with the REAL ID Act by transferring Haider's habeas case to us.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“alien who, after written notice ... has been provided to the alien or the alien's counsel of record, does not attend a proceeding ... shall be ordered removed in absentia if the [government] establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable.”
2 later decisions 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.