Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 F.2d 929 - Chen v. Foley

Chen v. Foley’s Empirical Analysis

385 F.2d 929 · 1967

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
November 2004
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2004 · most notably Balani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1982), Navinchandra Mafatlal Jarecha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice (1969)

25 federal appellate · 1 district ·

22019671970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Kennedy v. Powell · United States Ex Rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy · Jose Edmund Santos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Jose Roberto Murillos 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Section 245 [ 8 U.S.C. § 1255 ] contains certain objective prerequisites which must be met before the relief afforded by that section is available. Once these conditions are satisfied, then the alien has the burden of persuading the Attorney General to exercise his discretion favorably. Tibke v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 335 F.2d 42 (2nd Cir.1964). Simply because an alien fulfills the preliminary requirements, does not mean that he will automatically be accorded adjustment of status. Because this form of relief circumvents ordinary immigration procedures, it is extraordinary and will be granted only in meritorious cases, and the burden is on the immigrant to prove that his case is meritorious. Santos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 F.2d 262 (9th Cir.1967).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “On January 1, 1962, petitioner married Ella Lucille Self, a thirty-year old native born United States citizen, who had been previously married and divorced. He immediately filed a petition for adjustment of status to permanent resident alien, using as grounds therefor his marriage and the subsequent visa petition filed on his behalf by Ella Lucille Self Chen.”) (emphasis added).; Caddali v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 975 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir.1992) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the reviewing court is limited to an examination of the record to ascertain if that discretion has been abused. The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.