Al-Maleki v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.3d 1200 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2024
7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 8 U.S.C. § 1445 (§ 334 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1446 (§ 335 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (§ 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1448 (§ 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · United States of America v. Viken Hovsepian · Gilbert v. Shalala · Etape v. Chertoff · Hackett v. Barnhart
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“bas[ed] ... [on] the parties’ stipulations” in the joint motion, and that the order was judicially enforceable against USCIS if the agency failed to comply. Id. Entry of such an order, the Tenth Circuit said, "not USCIS’s stipulation, was the action which indelibly alter[ed] the legal landscape between USCIS and [the applicant].” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This order sufficed to make the applicant a prevailing party. 10 . The majority also contends that USCIS “could reasonably believe it does not violate the statute by not acting within 120 days on the grounds that the statute does not command it to act within the deadline.” The agency's own regulations belie this claim. As noted, part 335.3(a) expressly treats the 120-day time frame as a deadline. Moreover, as a matter of policy, if the naturalization applicant goes to the trouble of filing a lawsuit seeking mandamus on the basis that the 120-day deadline has expired, the agency will capitulate and expedite the FBI name check request. According to a document entitled "FBI Name Check Expedite Criteria,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aronov v. Napolitano“On the basis of the parties’ stipulations, the district court resolved Al- Maleki’s claims in his favor, concluding he was entitled to be naturalized and ordering USCIS to administer the oath on a date certain. The order, therefore, also provided the judicial imprimatur which is ' indispensable to the prevailing party determination. The order placed the weight of judicial authority behind US-CIS’s stipulation that Al-Maleki was entitled to be naturalized by imposing a judicially enforceable obligation on US-CIS to naturalize Al-Maleki by a date certain. If USCIS failed to comply with the order, Al- Maleki could petition for relief in district court.”
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.