Odmar v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Romilus v. Ashcroft · Silva v. Ashcroft · Levin v. Dalva Brothers Inc · Susanto 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]eterminations of changed circumstances are generally factual determinations” and that Odmar had failed to prove otherwise. Id. at 613 . However, the crucial distinction between Odmar and this case is that, in Odmar, there was no legal error found. It was because the agency's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lumataw v. Holder
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.