Zayed v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
368 F.3d 902 · 2004
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Goode v. Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc. (2015), Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc. (2005)
17 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1291 · 8 U.S.C. § 1152 (§ 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (§ 310 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (§ 318 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Shomberg v. United States · CRUZ · 40 F. Supp. 2d 319 - Ngwana v. Attorney General of US
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here the INS has denied an application for naturalization on the ground that removal proceedings are pending, ... the district court's de novo review is limited to review of that threshold determination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he restraints that § 1429 imposes upon the Attorney General prevent a district court from granting effective relief under § 1421(c) so long as removal proceedings are pending. The exclusive power to naturalize aliens rests with the Attorney General, as we have seen, and § 1429 bars the use of that power while removal proceedings are pending. In the case before us, then, the district court could not properly have ordered the Attorney General to grant Ms. Zayed’s application for naturalization. And the district court could not properly have entered an order granting the application without reference to the Attorney General, Congress having decided that it would be the Attorney General who should have “sole authority to naturalize persons....” See 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest....”
2 later decisions 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.