Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis
517 F.3d 273 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Ruiz v. Mukasey (2009), Ginters v. Frazier (2010)
8 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 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 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. § 1252 (§ 242 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 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain · Yu Zhao v. Gonzales · Hadwani v. Gonzales · Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. · Briddle v. Scott
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) any judgment regarding the grant of relief under section ... 1255 of this title, or (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 1158(a) of this title.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Limitation on orphan petitions approved for a single petitioner; prohibition against approval in cases of marriages entered into in order to evade immigration laws; restriction on future entry of aliens involved with marriage fraud Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section no petition shall be approved if (1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts are precluded from reviewing those decisions “specified in the statute ” to be discretionary. Section 1252(a) (2) (B) (i) explicitly places “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under ... section 1255,” which provides the statutory authority for 1-485 applications, in this category of discretionary decisions that no courts have jurisdiction to review. The law makes clear that we and the district court lack jurisdiction over determinations made with respect to an 1-485 application for permanent resident status under § 1255. Id. (footnotes omitted).”
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.