Coyt v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
593 F.3d 902 · 2010
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229C (§ 240b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Auer v. Robbins · Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It would completely eviscerate the statutory right to reopen provided by Congress if the agency deems a motion to reopen constructively withdrawn whenever the government physically removes the petitioner while his motion is pending before the BIA. The only manner in which we can harmonize the provisions simultaneously affording the petitioner a ninety day right to file a motion to reopen and requiring the alien’s removal within ninety days is to hold, consistent with the other provisions of IIRIRA, that the physical removal of a petitioner by the United States does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing a motion to reopen.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall not be made by or in behalf of a person who is the subject of deportation proceedings subsequent to his departure from the United States. Any departure of such person from the United States occurring after the making of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall constitute a withdrawal of such motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“IIRIRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009 -546 (Sept. 30, 1996)), and Mendiola v. Holder, 585 F.3d 1303 , 1310 (10th Cir.2009) (following Rosillo-Puga), with Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 , 907 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that the departure bar”
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.