Rodriguez v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.3d 60 · 2006
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Mendez v. Holder (2009), Castro v. Attorney General of United States (2012)
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 1542 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 911 · 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · United States v. Broce · Jordan v. De George · Chun Gao v. Gonzales
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“alone is sufficient to categorize a crime as a CIMT.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted for an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title ...; and (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mendez v. Holder“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 , an alien is eligible for adjustment of his status to that of permanent resident if, inter alia, he or she “is admissible to the United States for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a) (emphasis added). An alien is not “admissible” if he “has falsely represented, himself ... to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter ... or any other Federal or State law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).”
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.