Chim Ming v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1993
10 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 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. § 1282 (§ 252 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (§ 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Midgett v. Slayton · Kan Kam Lin v. Rinaldi · 332 F. Supp. 790 - Buckley v. Gibney · Lincoln Roy Buckley and Everlast-Saw and Carbide Tools, Inc. v. Thomas C. Gibney, Deputy District Director Immigration and Naturalization Service for the District of New York, Everlast-Saw and Carbide Tools, Inc., and Lincoln Roy Buckley v. Immigration and 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Accession does not in any sense commit the contracting state to enlarge its immigration measures for refugees. Rather, the asylum concept is set forth in the prohibition against the return of a refugee in any manner whatsoever to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened; and the prohibition under Article 32 against the deportation of a refugee lawfully in the territory of a Contracting State to any country except in cases involving national security or public order. The deportation provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, with limited exceptions, are consistent with this concept. The Attorney General will be able to administer such provisions in conformity with the Protocol without amendment of the Act. [Emphasis added.] [Appendix 90th Cong., 2d Sess., Executive Report No. 14, Protocol Relating to Refugees, September 30, 1968, at 6.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(t)he history of the adoption of the Protocol by this country makes clear that all the individuals and institutions involved in that process had a continuing belief that the (Protocol) would not alter or enlarge the effect of existing immigration laws, chiefly because it was felt that our immigration laws already embodied the principles of the (Protocol).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bertrand v. Sava“The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to apply articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the Convention [relating to the Status of Refugees] to refugees as hereinafter defined.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vigile v. Sava
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.