Shah v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.3d 25 · 2008
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2020
5 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))
Relies on Fesseha v. Ashcroft · Carter v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ymeri v. Ashcroft · Xie Mei Zheng v. Gonzales · Yue Yun Lin v. Gonzales
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he IJ denied the motion to reopen. ... The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. It noted that Shah acknowledged that he had departed the United States for Canada during the pendency of his removal proceedings. Consequently, it found that he was barred from filing a motion to reopen based upon 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), [the departure bar]....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Toora v. Holder
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.