Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 567 F.3d 1067 - Cinapian v. Holder

Cinapian v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

567 F.3d 1067 · 2009

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
August 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Tampubolon v. Holder (2010), Lianhua Jiang v. Holder (2014)

14 federal appellate ·

430200920102020decided

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. § 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))

Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Biao Yang v. Gonzales · BURBANO · Abebe v. Gonzales · Espinoza 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]t no point — either before or during Hakopian’s hearing — did the government move to amend its Notice to Appear with respect to, or otherwise contest, Hakopian’s stated date of entry. Therefore, Hakopian could scarce be expected to produce additional documentary evidence of her arrival date, as the IJ required in his oral decision. Had the government ever withdrawn its allegation of or challenged Hakopian’s claimed entry date, a different case might obtain.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the combination of the government’s failure to disclose the DHS forensic reports in advance of the hearing or to make the reports’ author available for cross-examination and the IJ’s subsequent consideration of the reports under these circumstances” denied the petitioner a fair hearing, resulting in a violation of due process. Id. at 1075 . Explicitly referencing”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien ... and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government.”
    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.