Lopez v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[T]he plain language of the INA, and of the other statutes it refers to, states that any drug conviction that would qualify as a felony under either state or federal law is an aggravated felony. An aggravated felony is defined as “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance ..., including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code).” INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(B). In turn, a drug trafficking crime is “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.).” 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2). Finally, “[t]he term ‘felony’ is defined for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as ‘any Federal or State offense classified by applicable Federal or State Law as a felony.’ ” United States v. Briones-Mata, 116 F.3d 308 , 309 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 802 (13)). In other words, for INA purposes, a drug trafficking crime is an offense which would be punishable under 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., and which would qualify as a felony under either state or federal law. Briones-Mata, 116 F.3d at 310 (“[T]he definitions of the terms at issue indicate that Congress made a deliberate policy decision to include as an ‘aggravated felony’ a drug crime that is a felony under state law but only a misdemeanor under the CSA.”); accord United States v. Hernandez-Avalos, 251 F.3d 505 , 510 (5th Cir.2001); but see Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905 , 910-11 (9th Cir.2004) (relying on “the presumpti”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tostado v. Carlson · Tostado v. Carlson

2. “an additional jurisdictional provision to § 242. The new provision, INA § 242(a)(2)(D), codifies our jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law raised in petitions for review of decisions made by the Attorney General under INA § 240A and other sections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tostado v. Carlson

3. “detrimental reliance not on a repealed section of the INA that was in effect at the time of his plea, but rather on the BIA's interpretation of a federal criminal statute at the time of his plea—an interpretation that had no legal force in the Eighth Circuit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tostado v. Carlson