Urbano de Malaluan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 589 · 1978
Citation profile
57 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Balani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1982), Hernandez-Rivera v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1980)
57 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
Relies on Jay v. Boyd · Giova v. Rosenberg · Kasravi v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Lazaro Gonzalez-Cuevas and Amelia Valerio De Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Lazaro Gonzalez-Cuevas and Amelia Valerio De Gonzalez v. Immigration and 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The motion to reopen is only a preliminary proceeding, representing the first in a series of hurdles that the alien must clear to obtain relief____ The motion to reopen is not intended to be a substitute for a hearing. Its purpose is merely to allow the Board to screen out those claims that clearly lack merit and thus can be disposed of without a hearing. The function of the Board at the motion-to-reopen stage of the proceedings is not to make a determination of the alien’s eligibility for relief____ The function of the Board is merely to determine whether the alien has set forth a prima facie case of eligibility for relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a prima facie case of eligibility does exist, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Board not to reopen the deportation proceeding to allow a hearing by the immigration judge to determine whether or not eligibility does, in fact, exist; and, if it does, to permit the immigration judge to exercise the discretion provided for in the statute.”
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.