Parra v. Perryman’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.3d 954 · 1999
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Demore District Director San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service et al. v. Kim (2003), Reynaldo Requena-Rodriguez v. Kenneth Pasquarell, Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Director (1999)
19 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · United States v. Salerno · Reno v. Flores · Johnson v. Robison · Janet Reno, Attorney General v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee et al.
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Petitioner’s] legal right to remain in the United States has come to an end. An alien in [petitioner’s] position can withdraw his defense of the removal proceeding and return to his native land, thus ending his detention immediately. He has the keys in his pocket. A criminal alien who insists on postponing the inevitable has no constitutional right to remain at large during the ensuing delay, and the United States has a powerful interest in maintaining the detention in order to ensure the removal actually occurs.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this [Act].”
6 later decisions 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.