Chaidez v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.3d 773 · 2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Jones v. Flowers · Anant Ram v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Singh v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft · 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the person signing for an item to print as well as sign his or her name. This proposed change will apply to ... mail receiving ... certified ... service, and is intended to improve the usefulness of the record of delivery that demonstrates that the mail was delivered and the service rendered. Whether on a Postal Service delivery record or on a receipt returned to the sender, an illegible signature may compromise the value of the service for which the sender paid; the proposed new standard is designed to avoid that potential problem. Because most persons can provide a printed name that is more legible than their handwritten signature, the Postal Service believes the former will be valuable to the sender in those instances when it becomes necessary to identify the person who received an accountable mailpiece.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chaidez v. Gonzales“) (adopting the requirement that names be printed on return receipts as a final rule and stating that it would be implemented on October 2, 1994). 4 At the time Chaidez's OSC was mailed, seven years of continuous physical presence were required for suspension of deportation See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1994). The current statute's provisions for cancellation of removal increased the requisite period to ten years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(A). 5 We note that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(a)(2)(iv), in 1994 as now, defines”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chaidez v. Gonzales“) administratively closed the proceedings. 2 In 2000, the INS requested that Chaidez's case be reopened. The IJ who held the initial hearing regarding this request was inclined to agree with Chaidez's position that service of his OSC in 1994 was inadequate and that the INS would therefore have to begin proceedings anew. The IJ told the government, with reference to the BIA's decision in Matter of Huete, 20 I. & N. Dec. 250 (BIA 1991), which was adopted in relevant part by Grijalva:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chaidez 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.