Gonzalez v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis
454 F.3d 813 · 2006
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2020
13 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · United States v. Batchelder · United States v. Batchelder
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) the alien is given reasonable notice of the charges and of the opportunity described in subparagraph (C); (B) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as the alien shall choose; (C) the alien has a reasonable opportunity to inspect the evidence and rebut the charges; (D) a determination is made for the record that the individual upon whom the notice for the proceeding under this section is served (either in person or by mail) is, in fact, the alien named in such notice; (E) a record is maintained for judicial review; and (F) the final order of removal is not adjudicated by the same person who issues the charges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To the extent our decision in Alvarez-Portillo, 280 F.3d at 861 (holding that 'the substantive defenses to removal eliminated by [ 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(5) ] may not be retroactively denied to aliens who illegally reentered prior to enactment’), suggests a different result, it is overruled by Fernandez-Vargas. See Fernandez-Vargas, 126 S.Ct. at 2427 & n. 5.” Id. at 818 n. 4. See also Herrera-Molina v. Holder, 597 F.3d 128 , 135-36 (2d Cir.2010) (surveying our precedents and concluding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 1252(b)(2) refers to the location in which “the immigration judge” completed the removal proceedings, while the expedited removal proceedings established by § 1228(b) do not involve an immigration judge. However, we read the cross-reference to § 1252(b) in the section establishing expedited proceedings as indicating that the same venue rule applies to removal proceedings pre sided over by any officer of DHS, not just by an immigration judge. 5”
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.