Tamenut v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 1000 · 2008
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Kucana v. Holder (2010), Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder (2011)
33 federal appellate · 1 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 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 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. § 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 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Califano v. Sanders · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Heckler v. Chaney · Webster v. Doe
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although this court lacks jurisdiction over Tamenut’s challenge to the BIA's decision not to reopen sua sponte, we generally do have jurisdiction over any colorable constitutional claim.”); see also Nawaz v. Holder, 314 Fed.Appx. 736 , 736 (5th Cir.2009) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gor v. Holder · Thompson v. Barr“no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statute governing motions to reopen speaks only to motions filed by a party; it does not establish any standard to guide the agency’s discretion whether to reopen on its own motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). The regulation establishing the BIA’s authority to reopen sua sponte was promulgated pursuant to a general grant of regulatory authority that sets no standards for this decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (g). The regulation itself, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a), provides no guidance as to the BIA’s appropriate course of action, sets forth no factors for the BIA to consider in deciding whether to reopen sua sponte, places no constraints on the BIA’s discretion, and specifies no standards for a court to use to cabin the BIA’s discretion. See Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 282 , 107 S.Ct. 2360 , 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987); South Dakota v. Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d 1014, 1027 (8th Cir.2003) (stating that the “committed to agency discretion” exception applies only where statutes do not “provide even minimal guidance to limit agency discretion”). The use of permissive and discretionary language in the first sentence of § 1003.2(a) further supports the inference that the agency action is unreviewable. See Southern Ry., 442 U.S. at 456 , 99 S.Ct. 2388 ; Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 494 F.3d 1027, 1032-33 (D.C.Cir.2007). We are mindful that the BIA has said it may reopen proceedings on its own motion in “exceptional situations,” In re J-J”
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.