23 I. & N. Dec. 373 - JEAN’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Saintha v. Mukasey (2008), Romanishyn v. Attorney General of the United States (2006)
16 federal appellate · 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 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (§ 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1159 (§ 209 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. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · Lopez v. Davis · Sangha v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Lwin v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evaluations of requests for waivers of inadmissibility. . . cannot . . . focus solely on family hardships, but must consider the nature of the criminal offense that rendered an alien inadmissible in the first place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would not be a prudent exercise of the discretion afforded to me by this provision [§ 1159(c) ] to grant favorable adjustments of status to violent or dangerous individuals except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or cases in which an alien clearly demonstrates that the denial of status adjustment would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Moreover, depending on the gravity of the alien’s underlying criminal offense, such a showing might still be insufficient. ... For those aliens ... who engage in violent criminal acts during their stay here, this country will not offer its embrace.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“claims of hardship to the respondent's family against the gravity of her criminal offense . . . . will nearly always require the denial of a request for discretionary relief from removal where an alien's criminal conduct is as serious as that of the respondent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jean v. Gonzales
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.