Brito v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 160 · 2008
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Hoodho v. Holder (2009), Luna v. Holder (2011)
9 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 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)) · 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. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Zhang v. Gonzales · Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice · 126 S. Ct. 2916 - Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. v. Billing
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prior to 1960, any alien in the United States no longer in possession of a valid immigrant visa but eligible for adjustment of status had to go abroad to apply for permanent resident status. In 1960, Congress eliminated that burden by expanding eligibility for adjustment of status to include all aliens “inspected and admitted or paroled,” allowing aliens in the United States, with or without valid visas, to apply for immigrant status without having to depart. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a).... Section 1255(a) commits to the discretion of the United States Attorney General, “and under such regulations as he may prescribe,” the granting of applications for adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a).... In 1997, following the enactment of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), the Attorney General issued new regulations to implement IIRIRA.... [T]he Attorney General promulgated 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (c)(8), which rendered certain categories of aliens, including any arriving alien in removal proceedings, ineligible to apply for adjustment of status....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[1] an applicant for admission coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entiy, or [2] an alien seeking transit through the United States at a port-of-entry, or [3] an alien interdicted in international or United States waters and brought into the United States by any means, whether or not to a designated port-of-entry, and regardless of the means of transport. An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled ... and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rais v. Holder“Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 , the INS was abolished and its functions reassigned to subdivisions of the Department of Homeland Security.” Brito v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 160 , 162 n. 2 (2d Cir.2008). 2 . Not every removability provision requires application of the “categorical approach” or the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hoodho 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.