N-A-M’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
34 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Lapaix v. U.S. Attorney General (2010), Delgado v. Holder (2011)
34 federal appellate ·
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. § 1365 (Federal Anti-Tampering Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 175 (Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft · Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States · Hamama v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Morales v. Gonzales
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination, including the conviction records and sentencing information, as well as other information outside the confines of a record of conviction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It has been [the BIA’s] practice to allow both parties to explain and introduce evidence as to why a crime is particularly serious or not. We see no reason to exclude otherwise reliable information from consideration in an analysis of a particularly serious crime once the nature of the crime, as measured by its elements, brings it within the range of a “particularly serious” offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“whether . . . [the agency is] limited to certain sources of evidence in determining whether an offense is particularly serious.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lafortune v. Garland
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.