24 I. & N. Dec. 37 - GUERRA’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Nielsen v. Preap (2019), Singh v. Holder (2011)
12 federal appellate · 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Carlson v. Landon · United States ex rel. Potash v. District Director of Immigration & Naturalization · Fook Hong Mak v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States ex rel. Barbour v. District Director of Immigration & Naturalization Service · Sam Andrew' Sons v. Mitchell
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n Immigration Judge has broad discretion in deciding the factors that he or she may consider in custody redeterminations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The burden is on the alien to show to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge that he or she merits release on bond.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; (2) the alien's length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien's family ties in the United States, and whether they may entitle the alien to reside permanently in the United States in the future; (4) the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien's record of appearance in court; (6) the alien's criminal record, including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien's history of immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution or otherwise escape from authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the United States.”
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.