Hamilton v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
485 F.3d 564 · 2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2023
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (§ 205 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))
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Uanreroro v. Gonzales · Pinho v. Gonzales · Bangura v. Hansen · Schroeck 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this Act (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A visa revocation decision “may” be made by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his designee) “at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” 8 U.S.C. § 1155 . Employing conditional terms such as “may” and “at any time,” the statute uses language that is “indicative of administrative discretion.” Jilin Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. Chertoff, 447 F.3d 196 , 203 (3d Cir.2006). See also id. at 204 (by authorizing visa revocation for “good and sufficient cause,” the statute requires the agency to make a judgment call); El-Khader v. Monica, 366 F.3d 562 , 567 (7th Cir.2004) (“[T]he determination of whether there exists ‘good and sufficient cause’ [ ] necessarily is highly subjective, and there exist no strict standards for making this determination.”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Napolitano
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.