Grinberg v. Swacina’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1252 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Will v. United States · Heckler v. Ringer · Cash v. Barnhart · 36 F. Supp. 2d 922 - Yue Yu v. Brown
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and except as provided in subparagraph (D) and regardless of whether the judgment, decision or action is made in removal proceedings no court shall have jurisdiction to review — ... Any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under things subchap-ter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 1158(a) of this title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States ... may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]t issue between the parties is whether Congress intended the pace at which an adjustment of status application is processed to come within the ambit of a discretionary, and hence non-reviewable ‘action.’ In granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, this Court finds that Congress intended to include the pace within its discretionary function.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sharif v. Chertoff
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.