Hoang Minh Ly v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]ppeals and petitions for relief are to be expected as a natural part of the process. An alien who would not normally be subject to indefinite detention cannot be so detained merely because he seeks to explore avenues of relief that the law makes available to him. Further, although an alien may be responsible for seeking relief, he is not responsible for the amount of time that such determinations may take. The mere fact that an alien has sought relief from deportation does not authorize the INS to drag its heels indefinitely in making a decision. The entire process, not merely the original deportation hearing, is subject to the constitutional requirement of reasonability.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reid v. Donelan · Hechavarria v. Sessions

2. “A bright-line time limitation, as imposed in Zadvydas [a six month presumptive reasonable time for post-removal detention] would not be appropriate for the pre-removal period; hearing schedules and other proceedings must have leeway for expansion or contraction as the necessities of the case and the immigration judge’s caseload warrant. In the absence of a set period of time, courts must examine the facts of each case, to determine whether there has been unreasonable delay in concluding removal proceedings.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamama v. Adducci · Misquitta v. Warden Pine Prairie Ice Processing Ctr.

3. “[T]he district court determined that incarceration for one and one-half years as part of a civil, nonpunitive proceeding when there was no chance of actual, final removal, ivas unreasonable. We agree. As of the September 21, 2000 opinion and recommendation of the magistrate judge, Ly had been imprisoned for a year and a half with no final decision as to removability in the case. That decision as to removability was not made until nearly a month later, after the magistrate judge recommended granting the writ of habeas corpus. Ly served criminal sentences for his two convictions of a total of 12 months; he spent considerably more time than that in INS custody awaiting a determination on removal. Further, any detention under IIRIRA must be reasonably related to the goal of the statute. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699-700 , 121 S.Ct. 2491 . The goal of pre-removal incarceration must be to ensure the ability of the government to make a final deportation. The danger is that a criminal alien, upon receiving notice of deportation proceedings, will flee. The actual removability of a criminal alien therefore has bearing on the reasonableness of his detention prior to removal proceedings. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 , 121 S.Ct. 2491 . Because Ly was not removable, a year-and-a-half imprisonment awaiting removal proceedings was especially unreasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamama v. Adducci · 743 F. Supp. 2d 189 - LUNA-APONTE v. Holder