Lopez v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.3d 396 · 2019
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. · Federal Election Commission v. Akins
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) The defendant was "sufficiently informed to attend his hearings." Unlike in Pereira , the defendant was properly served with an NTA and a subsequent notice of hearing (the latter specifying the time and place of the hearing) and the defendant attended his initial removal hearing and subsequent hearings. (ii) Pereira was never intended to extend so broadly. "The Court specifically stated multiple times that the issue before it was 'narrow' and that the 'dispositive question' was whether a notice to appear that does not specify the time and place at which proceedings will be held, as required by [ Section 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) ], triggers the 'stop-time' rule for purposes of cancellation of removal." (iii) The Supreme Court "did not purport [that the defective NTA] invalidate[d] the alien's underlying removal proceedings or suggest that proceedings should be terminated[; instead it] remanded the matter for further proceedings." (iv) The BIA is "compelled to follow" the regulations governing an immigration court's jurisdiction, which do not "mandate that the [charging] document specify the time and date of the initial hearing before jurisdiction will vest."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Because [the government] failed to serve Pereira with a supplemental notice ..., the Supreme Court was not called upon to, and did not, address whether all the requirements of a notice to appear listed in [ 8 U.S.C.] § 1229(a) must be contained in a single document.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pierre-Paul v. Barr“[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless context indicates otherwise[,] words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pierre-Paul v. Barr
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.