ROLDAN’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “We ... find it significant that, under the new definition, an alien is considered convicted for immigration purposes despite the fact that further proceedings addressing -the merits of the original charge might be required before the state would consider him convicted. It would be incongruous for us to interpret the definition to allow an alien, who during the entire period of his probation would have been considered convicted for immigration purposes, to be relieved of the immigration consequences of his misconduct as of the date of a subsequent rehabilitative state action having absolutely no. relation to the merits of the charge. Congress has focused on the original determination of guilt and has expressed clear disinterest regarding subsequent state rehabilitative measures. We therefore interpret the new definition to provide that an alien is considered convicted for immigration purposes upon the initial satisfaction of the requirements of section 101 (a)(48)(A) of the Act, and that he remains convicted notwithstanding a subsequent state action purporting to erase all evidence of the original determination of guilt through a rehabilitative procedure.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Uritsky v. Gonzales · Ramirez-Altamirano v. Mukasey

2. “does not address the situation where the alien has had his or her conviction vacated by a state court on direct appeal, wherein the court determines that vacation of the conviction is warranted on the merits, or on grounds relating to a violation of a fundamental statutory or constitutional right in the underlying criminal proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pinho v. Gonzales · Pinho v. Atty Gen USA

3. “The legislative history of section 322 of the IIRIRA underscores the breadth of the new definition: “Ozkok * * * does not go far enough to address situations where a judgment of guilt or imposition of sentence is suspended, conditioned upon the alien’s future good behavior. * * * In some States, adjudication may be ‘deferred’ upon a finding or confession of guilt, and a final judgment of guilt may not be imposed if the alien violates probation until there is an additional proceeding regarding the alien’s guilt or innocence. In such cases, the third prong of the Ozkok definition prevents the original finding or confession of guilt to be considered a ‘conviction’ for deportation purposes. This new provision, by removing the third prong of Ozkok , clarifies Congressional intent that even in cases where adjudication is ‘deferred,’ the original finding or confession of guilt is sufficient to establish a ‘conviction’ for purposes of the immigration laws.” See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 224 (1996).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kona (Slip Opinion)