green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
37.6 score
“efendant has not pointed to any passage of either 18 the guidelines or a statute that reflects a legislative intent to preclude the 1 1 application of both the . . . enhancement and a . . . adjustment in a single 2 sentence.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Chang Zhuang v. Eric Holder
(2×)
But see Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994) (requiring an alien to make a prima facie showing that, but for counsel’s failure, he would have been entitled to relief).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Liddon Young
efendant has not pointed to any passage of either 18 the guidelines or a statute that reflects a legislative intent to preclude the 1 1 application of both the . . . enhancement and a . . . adjustment in a single 2 sentence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reese v. Garland
Petitioners do not otherwise allege a procedural error and make no 27 Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). 28 See Anwar v. I.N.S., 116 F.3d 140 , 144 n.4 (5th Cir. 1997). 29 This court has noted in the context of criminal prosecution that “when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the Government may prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants.” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). 9 Case: 22-60111 Document: 00516722853 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/24/2023 No. 22-60111 substantive due process argument…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez De Villeda v. Wilkinson
Moreover, Petitioners have offered no evidence to indicate that the gang members were aware of any political opinion expressed by Lopez De 14 Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 15 See Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). 16 See Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). 8 Case: 19-60513 Document: 00515762670 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 No. 19-60513 Villeda.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fithawi Sebhatleab v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 2347 (c), [this court] may order a remand if (1) the additional evidence sought to be offered is material and (2) there were reasonable grounds for the alien’s failure to submit the additional evidence to the agency.” Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sonia Serrano-Amaya v. William Barr, U. S.
Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Madrigales-Rodriguez v. Jefferson Sessions, I
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 306-07 (5th Cir. 2010); Miranda-Lores, 17 F.3d at 85; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberto Madrigales Rodriguez v. Jefferson Sessions
To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the petitioner must show (1) ineffective representation and (2) resulting “substantial prejudice.” Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Zhong Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
See Mai, 473 F.3d at 165 ; Mirandas-Lores, 17 F.3d at 84-85.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallegos v. Gonzales
Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mejia Rodriguez v. Reno
(2×)
Rabiu, 41 F.3d at 881 ; Miranda-Lores, 17 F.3d at 85.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ernesto Alonso Mejia Rodriguez v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Ernesto Alonso Mejia Rodriguez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Miranda-Lores, 17 F.3d at 85 (rejecting the ineffective assistance-claim because the alien failed to establish prejudice).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. Reno
(2×)
Rabiu, 41 F.3d at 881 ; Miranda-Lores, 17 F.3d at 85.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lateef Rabiu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
We conclude that Rabiu has made a prima facie showing that he would have been eligible for relief had his section 212(c) application been filed, cf. Miranda-Lores, 17 F.3d at 85, and that he was a strong candidate for that relief.
cited
Cited "see"
Salazar-Maldanado v. Garland
See Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Garcia-Tinoco v. Wilkinson
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Rudy Norato Lopez v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sang Jeon v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir. 1994). * * * The petition for review is DENIED. 3 In any event, evidence regarding the “alien’s due diligence upon learning of the in absentia order” does not create an independent basis for reopening—it merely assists a petitioner in rebutting the presumption of notice.
discussed
Cited "see"
Santos Espinoza-Portillo v. William Barr, U. S. At
(2×)
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir. 1994); Guevara Flores v. INS, 786 F.2d 1242 , 1246–47 (5th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Pervej Shamim v. Loretta Lynch
See Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kulwinder Singh v. Loretta Lynch
(2×)
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Restrepo-Mejia v. Holder
(2×)
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Khan v. Keisler
(2×)
See Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Foncham v. Gonzales
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir.1994); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Valiente-Mazariego v. Gonzales
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th *541 Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Salgado v. Gonzales
See Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir.1994) (to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings, petitioner must demonstrate substantial prejudice).
discussed
Cited "see"
Habib v. Gonzales
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Miranda-Lores, 17 F.3d at 85 ; see also Patel v. I.N.S., 803 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marquez-Medina v. Underdown
(2×)
“Nevertheless, the absence of an attorney may create a due process violation if the defect impinged upon the fundamental fairness of the hearing in violation of the fifth amendment, and there was substantial prejudice.” Id.; see Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).
examined
Cited "see"
Jawaid Anwar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(3×)
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir.1994); Figeroa v. United States INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir.1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Anwar v. INS
(3×)
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir. 1994); Figeroa v. United States INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited "see"
ABU KAMAL v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
examined
Cited "see"
AMAL S. GALAYR v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
(4×)
See Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gong Zi Song v. Holder
See 8 *42 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) (1997) (90-day time limitation for motions to reopen); see also Rabiu, 41 F.3d at 882-83 , citing Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir.1994) (finding that proving actual prejudice requires a petitioner to establish that “had the application been filed, [s]he would have been entitled to relief’); Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (a motion to reopen to pursue an application of adjustment of status, based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of proceedings, may be granted only, if, inter alia, the motion was ti…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matute v. District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service
To establish prejudice, Matute must “make a prima facie showing that he would have been eligible for [political asylum] and that he could have made a strong showing in support of his application [for asylum].” Rabiu, 41 F.3d at 882-883 ; see, also, Mirandas-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84 , 85 (5th Cir.1994) (requisite showing of substantial prejudice).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miranda-Lores
v.
I.N.S.
v.
I.N.S.
93-05089.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 21, 1994.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1)
Evelio MIRANDA-LORES, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 93-5089
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 1994.
1
NOTE: THE COURT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS OPINION. SEE 17 F.3d 84