Ali v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis
924 F.3d 983 · 2019
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on 138 S. Ct. 2105 - Pereira v. Sessions · Karingithi v. Whitaker · 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 - BERMUDEZ-COTA · Gray v. City of Valley Park · Banegas Gomez v. Barr
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As our sister circuits have explained, § 1229(a) says nothing about how jurisdiction vests in an immigration court. For that we must turn to the regulations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a court utilizing such a notice fails to obtain subject matter jurisdiction at its inception”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not contain the time and place of the removal proceeding is invalid”
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.