Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Yueh-Shaio Yang’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
234 federal appellate · 31 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 524 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr (2001), Fedaa al Najjar Mazen al Najjar v. John Ashcroft Attorney General US Department of Justice (2001)
234 federal appellate · 31 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Escoe v. Zerbst · Attwood v. Singletary · MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Jay v. Boyd · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Errico 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 524 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an agency 'announces and follows-by rule or by settled course of adjudication-a general policy by which its exercise of discretion will be governed,' " such that there is "some law to apply”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Attorney General's suspension of deportation . . . [is] `an act of grace' which is accorded pursuant to her `unfettered discretion.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he section of this paragraph relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens, described in section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) of this title, whether wilful or innocent, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other than an alien described in paragraph 4(D)) who — (i) is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and (ii) was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such entry except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 1182(a) of this title which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation. A waiver of deportation for fraud or misrepresentation granted under this subparagraph shall also operate to waive deportation based on the inadmissibility at entry directly resulting from such fraud or misrepresentation.”
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.