Lopez-Dubon v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.3d 642 · 2010
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Reno v. Flores · Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Attorney General · Yu Zhao v. Gonzales · Roy v. Ashcroft
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the BIA deems an issue sufficiently presented to consider it on the merits, such action by the BIA exhausts the issue as far as the agency is concerned and that is all that [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(d)(1) requires to confer our jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pierre-Paul v. Barr“[t]he service provision [now at 8 C.F.R. § 103.8 (c)(2)(ii) ] specifically calls for notice to be served on an adult only when the alien is under 14 years of age”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nunez v. Sessions
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.