Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 353 F.3d 585 - Pilch v. Ashcroft

Pilch v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

353 F.3d 585 · 2003

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
August 2022
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Ali v. Gonzales (2006), Subhan v. Ashcroft (2004)

25 federal appellate ·

450200320102020decided

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. § 1229A (§ 240 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Calderon v. Thompson · Yang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Terrazas-Garcia · Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft · Nwaokolo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

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

  1. “The thing under review is the agency's final decision, not the language of its opinion; and if the decision is to withhold certain discretionary remedies, that's the end.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is a discretionary decision that is unreviewable . . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n an attempt at disguise, captioned [a successive motion to reopen] as a motion asking the Board to act sua sponte—but, of course, if reopening were to occur in response to a motion, it could not have been sua sponte.”
    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.