Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 FSUPP2D 229 - United States v. Perez

United States v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
March 2016
most recently cited

2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · United States v. Mendoza-Lopez · MARIN · Rabiu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Saleh v. United States Department of Justice

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Situations in which courts have found a deprivation of the opportunity for review include an unconsidered and unintelligent waiver of appeal, Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. at 840 , 107 S.Ct. 2148 , 95 L.Ed.2d 772 ; failure to advise of the availability of discretionary relief, United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076 , 1079 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Aguirre-Tello, 181 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1303-1304 (D.N.M.2002); inadequate explanation of a section 212(c) hearing and such a hearing’s accompanying rights, United States v. Sanchez-Peralta, 1998 WL 63405 , at (S.D.N.Y.Feb.13, 1998); and failure to inform the alien of the time and date of a hearing, United States v. Montano-Bentancourt, 151 F.Supp.2d 794, 796-97 (W.D.Tex.2001)-Deprivation of judicial review can also be established by demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.