Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2022
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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (§ 310 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (§ 318 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (§ 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Bravo v. Ashcroft · 24 I. & N. Dec. 103 - ACOSTA HIDALGO · CRUZ
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The applicant] contends that jurisdiction exists under 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b), which provides district courts the authority to review a naturalization application that has not been decided more than 120 days after an in-person examination. Even if jurisdiction exists under § 1447(b), however, invoking jurisdiction under this section would be futile. Section 1447(b) provides a district court with a means of addressing the administrative delay of an application that the Attorney General may consider. But § 1429 does not allow the Attorney General-to consider naturalization applications when a removal proceeding is pending. Under § 1447(b), then, the district court could have either determined the matter or remanded the matter for the USCIS to determine the matter. But in either instance the appropriate determination is controlled by § 1429, and § 1429 requires that [the applicant] wait until the termination of the removal proceeding before either a district court or the USCIS entertains a question regarding his naturalization application. In sum, the administrative delay here is required by § 1429.”
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.