Wala v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.3d 102 · 2007
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder (2009), SILVA-TREVINO (2015)
20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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. § 1182 (§ 212 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Taylor v. United States · Shepard v. United States · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Yan Chen 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a conviction for theft [was] considered to involve moral turpitude only when a permanent taking [was] intended.... [, however,] in some cases the BIA ... stated that larceny is a CIMT without distinguishing between a permanent and a temporary taking.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“suggest[ing] that whether this distinction actually exists is an open question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In his plea colloquy, ... Wala “actually admitted” to facts establishing that he was convicted of a burglary with the intent to commit a larceny. Wala did not admit, however, to taking these items with the intent to appropriate them permanently. Wala, moreover, was not charged with committing a permanent taking; the charging document does not specifically name the intended crime associated with his burglary conviction.... However improbable, Wala could have been taking the jewelry with the intent to loan it to his girlfriend for one “night on the town” and then return it. Or, he could have been taking the credit cards with the intent to use them for a one-time identification purpose. The point is that either would have been sufficient to sustain Wala’s guilty plea and conviction ____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Patel v. Holder
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.