Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney General’s Empirical Analysis
513 F.3d 1244 · 2008
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Tang v. U.S. Attorney General (2009), De Quan Yu v. U.S. Attorney General (2009)
19 federal appellate ·
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 6 U.S.C. § 271 · 6 U.S.C. § 557 · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Because] immigration courts have no jurisdiction over adjustment applications filed by aliens in [petitioner’s] position, ... his application would never return to the immigration courts even if denied by USCIS. Given these circumstances — in which there is no possibility that [petitioner’s] adjustment application would be adjudicated during removal proceedings — the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying [petitioner’s] motions [to reopen and to reconsider].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] statute or administrative regulation does not operate retroactively merely because it applies to prior conduct[.]” Scheerer v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead,”
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.