Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 F.3d 1009 - Ahmed v. Holder

Ahmed v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

569 F.3d 1009 · 2009

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

11 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Avagyan v. Holder (2011), Rendon v. Holder (2010)

11 federal appellate ·

1120200920102020decided

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. § 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 Shabanali Ladha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey · Baires v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · BURBANO · Abebe 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Nor does the record reflect any specific inconvenience to the administrative court, aside from the IJ’s announcement that she was not keeping this on [her] calendar ... pending [petitioner’s labor certification application]. We have repeatedly warned that a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness ivill not justify the denial of a meritorious request for delay, especially where the delay impairs the petitioner’s statutory rights. An immigrant’s right to have his or her case heard should not be sacrificed because of the immigration judge’s heavy caseload.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Claims addressed on the merits by the BIA are deemed exhausted.”). Vasquez raised the issue in her opening brief before this court but did not provide argument supporting her position. Typically,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “decision to grant or deny the continuance is within 'the sound discretion of the judge.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.