Drax v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.3d 98 · 2003
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Gill v. Immigration & Naturalization Services (2005), United States v. Stewart (2006)
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 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. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1183 (§ 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Bagamasbad
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) In general. For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) [offspring of LPR] and (d) [offspring not otherwise covered], a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) [is under twenty-one] shall be made using— (A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien’s parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence [LPR status] within one year of such availability; reduced by (B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending. (2) Petitions described. The petition described in this paragraph is— (A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 [ 8 U.S.C. § 1154 ] for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or (B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 [ 8 U.S.C. § 1154 ] for classification of the alien’s parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c). (3) Retention of priority date. If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) [offspring of LPR] and (d) [offspring not otherwise covere”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“212(c)”), provided that "[a]liens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to the provisions of subsection (a) of this section (other than paragraphs (3) and (9)(C)). Nothing contained in this subsection shall limit the authority of the Attorney General to exercise the discretion vested in him under section 1181(b) of this title. The first sentence of this subsection shall not apply to an alien who has been convicted of one or more aggravated felonies and has served for such felony or felonies a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years.” See also, e.g., Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 , 107-08 (2d Cir.2003) (describing availability of 212(c) relief). 5 . Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 , § 304(B) (1996); Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“On the record before me it appears highly unlikely that [De Cardenas] will ever become involved in drugs again. She has no apparent history of involvement in drug trafficking. While she has submitted no documentary evidence about the difficulty Colombian women have in finding work, especially if they are not young, this would not surprise me.... [De Cardenas’] working history has all occurred in the United States. To deport her to Colombia at such an age, after she has already been punished by such a long sentence, and to deprive her of her family in her final years seems to me to be inhumane, out of all proportion to her offense, and not justified by any valid governmental objective. ' Consequently, I find that if [De Cardenas’] eligibility for section 212(c) relief had not been eliminated by Matter of Soriano , I would rule that she should be granted section 212(c) relief in the exercise of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. De Cardenas v. Reno
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.