Sembiring v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.3d 981 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably M-R-A (2008), Santana Gonzalez v. Attorney General of the United States (2007)
8 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. § 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252B (§ 242b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on BURBANO · Movsisian v. Ashcroft · Abebe v. Gonzales · Lanza v. Ashcroft · Agyeman 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is practical and commonsensical rather than rigidly formulaic.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Salta, less evidence was required to overcome the presumption of effective service than under Grijalva. This lower evidentiary standard makes good sense. If a letter is sent by certified mail, there is a paper trail in Postal Service records showing both mailing and receipt (or non-receipt). By contrast, there is no Postal Service paper trail for regular mail. There is seldom any administrative paper trail either, other than a copy of the notice in question and, sometimes, a copy of the envelope in which the notice was sent. As we previously held in Salta, “some of the Grijalvar-Arrieta proof requirements (e.g., documentary evidence from the Postal Service, third party affidavits indicating improper delivery, etc.) ... clearly have no application under a regular mail regime.” [Salta,] 314 F.3d at 1080 . If the evidence described in Grijalva “were the standard under the current statute, we would leave respondents virtually without recourse to rebut the presumption of effective delivery.” Ghounem, 378 F.3d at 744 . Such a result would defeat the purpose of Congress’s express authorization for rescission of in absentia removal orders when the alien “did not receive notice.” 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that an affidavit is one way to establish non-receipt of a notice sent by regular mail....But a sworn affidavit is not always necessary.”
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.