Mustata’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Judith Aguilera, Diaz-Bernal v. Myers (2010)
6 district ·
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
Relies on Janet Reno, Attorney General v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee et al. · Magnolia Venture Capital Corp. v. Mississippi Department of Economic & Community Development · Henderson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Navas · Lozada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Goncalves v. Reno
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There was good reason for Congress to focus special attention upon, and make special provision for, judicial review of the [three] discrete acts [listed in the statute] — which represent the initiation or prosecution of various stages in the deportation process. At each stage the Executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor, and at the time IIRIRA was enacted the INS had been engaging in a regular practice (which had come to be known as “deferred action”) of exercising that discretion for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience. ... However, the INS’s exercise of this discretion opened the door to litigation in instances where the INS chose not to exercise it.... Section 1252(g) seems clearly designed to give some measure of protection to “no deferred action” decisions and similar discretionary determinations, providing that if they are renewable at all, they at least will not be made the bases for separate rounds of judicial intervention outside the streamlined process that Congress has designed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'ther[e] was good reason for Congress to focus special attention upon' these three acts because 'a[t] each stage the Executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor [i.e. removal], and at the time IIRIRA was enacted the INS had been engaging in a regular practice (which had come to be known as ‘deferred action’) of exercising that discretion for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience’ ... aliens had started to bring cases challenging the INS’s decision not to exercise its discretion to allow aliens to stay in this country ... 'Sec tion 1252(g) seems clearly designed to give some measure of protection to 'no deferred action' decisions and similar discretionary determinations ... ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that the Mustatas in their petition seek a stay of deportation does not make their claim one against the decision to execute a removal order. The substance of their claim is that their counsel’s [ineffective assistance] resulted in a violation of their due process rights. Whether or not the Attorney General executes a removal order against the [Petitioners] is immaterial to the substance of this claim. Respondents’ argument to the contrary confuses the substance of the Mustatas’ claim with the remedy requested.”
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.