Nyaga v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
323 F.3d 906 · 2003
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Mickeviciute v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2003), Zixiang Li v. Kerry (2013)
13 federal appellate · 8 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1202 (§ 222 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Powell v. McCormack · Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · North Carolina v. Rice
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ujnless there is some ambiguity in the language of a statute, a court’s analysis must end with the statute’s plain language. When we examine the meaning of statutory words or phrases, however, we cannot examine statutory provisions in isolation. “It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he phrase ‘shall remain eligible to receive such visa’ plainly means that aliens ... who have been randomly selected to qualify for a visa under the diversity visa program cannot be issued a visa after midnight of the final day of the fiscal year for which they were selected. As of midnight on September 30 ... [the plaintiff] was no longer eligible to receive an immigrant visa. The INS’s failure to process [the plaintiffs] application does not extend [his] statutorily limited period of eligibility for a diversity visa. ‘Eligible to receive such visa’ is unambiguous, and because the phrase is unambiguous, our inquiry must end with the statute’s plain language.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in 1996 Congress passed legislation which permitted Fiscal Year 1995 Diversity Program applicants from Poland to receive diversity visas from the fiscal year 1997 visa numbers. In 1998, Congress enacted ameliorative legislation that authorized Fiscal Year 1998 Diversity Visa Program applicants from Kenya and Tanzania ... to receive visas from the fiscal year 1999 visa numbers. While neither situation involved ... [a] failure to process a lottery winner’s application, this distinction is irrelevant; Congress’s action dearly evince[dj its understanding that an applicant is no longer eligible to receive a visa, absent legislative action, after the relevant fiscal year has ended even if there are unissued visa numbers remaining from the relevant fiscal year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Keli v. Rice
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.