Iasu v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.3d 881 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Morales-Izquierdo v. Department of Homeland Security (2010), Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey (2008)
12 federal appellate · 4 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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. § 1421 (§ 310 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1448 (§ 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1503 (§ 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Zadvydas v. Davis · Iturribarria v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ng Fung Ho v. White · Mayle v. Felix
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““With respect to review of an order of removal ... the following requirements apply: (5) Treatment of nationality claims (A) Court determination if no issue of fact If the petitioner claims to be a national of the United States and the court of appeals finds from the pleadings and affidavits that no genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner’s na tionality is presented, the court shall decide the nationality claim. (B) Transfer if issue of fact If the petitioner claims to be a national of the United States and the court of appeals finds that a genuine issue of material fact about the petitioner’s nationality is presented, the court shall transfer the proceeding to the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the petitioner resides for a new hearing on the nationality claim and a decision on that claim as if an action had been brought in the district court under section 2201 of Title 28. (C) Limitation on determination The petitioner may have such nationality claim decided only as provided in this paragraph.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 106 of the REAL ID Act does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution because it provides, through review by a federal court of appeals, an adequate and effective remedy to test the legality of an alien’s detention. Even though habeas corpus relief is precluded by the REAL ID Act, a deportable alien can still seek review of constitutional and legal claims by moving the BIA to reopen or reconsider its previous ruling, and if unsuccessful, by filing a petition for review in the court of appeals. This procedure offers the same review as that formerly afforded in habeas corpus which provided legal, but not factual or discretionary, determinations. Since the substitute remedy of a petition for review offers the same scope of review as a habeas remedy, it is adequate and effective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Muka v. Baker“any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(9) (emphasis added). It does not bar an action by Torres, who challenges his detention and raises a non-frivolous claim of citizenship. 7 . We have held, however, that the elimination of habeas jurisdiction to challenge a final order of removal is not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ because the INA”
1 later decision 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.