Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.3d 1001 · 2003
Citation profile
23 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Bonilla v. Lynch (2016), Pareja v. Attorney General of the United States (2010)
23 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 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang · Kalaw v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft · Ekimian v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Hector Montero-Martinez v. John Ashcroft Attorney General of the United States
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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the BIA's interpretation of the hardship standard violates due process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The managers have deliberately changed the required showing of hardship from “extreme hardship” to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to emphasize that the alien must provide evidence of harm to his spouse, parent, or child substantially beyond that which ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation. The “extreme hardship” standard has been weakened by recent administrative decisions .... Our immigration law and policy clearly provide that an alien parent may not derive immigration benefits through his or her child who is a United States citizen. The availability in truly exceptional eases of relief under [the cancellation of removal statute] must not undermine this or other fundamental immigration enforcement policies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“interpretation of the hardship standard contradicts congressional intent to such a degree that it violates [Petitioner's] due process rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.