Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.3d 1209 · 2002
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Andia v. Ashcroft (2004), Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft (2003)
22 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Mathews v. Diaz · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell · United States Knauff v. Shaughnessy · Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`may reject even the uncontradicted conclusions of an expert witness and reach their own decisions on the basis of independent examination of foreign legal authorities.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“language, the BIA interpreted the statute to permit entry of an alien who had admitted committing all of the essential elements of a crime of moral turpitude for which the prosecution would carry the burden of proof at trial. See Matter of K___, 7 I. & N. Dec. at 596. The alien in Matter of K___ had not admitted an element that, although included in the statute, the alien would have had to disprove at trial as a defense. See id. at 596 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger [the INA's jurisdictional bar for controlled substance offenders.]. Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation, we have jurisdiction.”). 6 . Although Nakaranurack I was subsequently determined”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Laing v. Ashcroft
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.