United States v. Lopez’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.3d 90 · 2006
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales (2006), United States of America v. Charleswell (2006)
10 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 6 U.S.C. § 251 · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza · United States v. Mendoza-Lopez
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.
“In. a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien may not challenge the validity of the deportation order described in subsection (a)(1) of this section or subsection (b) of this section unless the alien demonstrates that— (1)the alien exhausted any administrative, remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[h]ad the [immigration judge] (and subsequently the BIA) not provided erroneous information ... about the legal availability of § 212(c) relief, it might have occurred to [defendant] to look for other remedies at law. The fact that an administrative body told him that no such relief existed is a powerful deterrent from seeking judicial relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prior to 1996, former § 212(c) of the INA vested the Attorney General with broad discretion to cancel deportation orders for aliens who met certain residence requirements and had not served five years in prison for an aggravated felony.”
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.