Langhorne v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.3d 175 · 2004
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from New York Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1431 (§ 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (§ 321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1433 (§ 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1445 (§ 334 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Richards v. United States · Diallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Stanislav Iavorski v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service · Ernest Iskandar Nehme 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] parent who is a citizen of the United States may apply to the Attorney General for a certificate of citizenship on behalf of a child born outside the United States. The Attorney General shall issue such a certificate of citizenship upon proof to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the following conditions have been fulfilled: (1) At least one parent is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization. (2) The child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission. (3) The child is under the age of 18 years and in the legal custody of the citizen parent. (4) If the citizen parent is an adoptive parent of the child, the child was adopted by the citizen parent before the child reached the age of 16 years and the child meets the requirements for being a child under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title. (5)If the citizen parent has not been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years— (A) the. child is residing permanently in the United States with the citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, or (B) a citizen parent of the citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pierre v. Holder“Significantly, Section 321(a) [§ 1432(a) ] reduced the age at which a child could acquire derivative citizenship from eighteen (under the 1940 Act) to sixteen.... This change was problematic, however, for the reason noted by the Attorney General in a 1978 letter to the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee: Currently, a person is not eligible to file a petition for naturalization in his own behalf under [ 8 U.S.C. § 1445 ] until reaching the age of 18. Thus, there is a 2-year period during which a child is not able to derive citizenship by reason of his parents’ naturalization, but is not able to file his own petition for naturalization either. The only procedure available during this period is for the parent or parents to file a formal petition for the child’s naturalization.... This procedure is both cumbersome and unnecessary. Young people between the age of 16 and 18 should be able to derive citizenship automatically....”
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.