Wallace v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
463 F.3d 135 · 2006
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice (2006), Padmore v. Holder (2010)
7 federal appellate ·
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 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Saloum v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · Higuit v. Gonzales · Bugayong v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Elysee 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]acts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] review of the factual record by the BIA does not convert its discretionary determination as to whether a petitioner warrants an adjustment of status into improper factfinding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Adjustment of status is a matter of grace, not of right, and the evaluation of such applications is left to the discretion of the Attorney General.”
2 later decisions 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.