Miah v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.3d 784 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2020
12 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. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Castellano-Chacon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ngure v. Ashcroft · VELARDE
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [jurisdiction-stripping] statute applies to decisions “the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.” (emphasis added). The discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider is conferred by the Attorney General’s regulations, not by statute. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 . Thus, we have continued our long-standing practice of reviewing the denial of motions to reopen for abuse of the BIA’s discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vargas v. Holder“A government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it, but it does cross the line into acquiescence when it shows willful blindness toward the torture of citizens by third parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lesum v. Barr“[t]o qualify for relief under the CAT, [Lesum] must show it is more likely than not that he ... would be tortured if returned to [Bangladesh].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lesum v. Barr
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.