Mora v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
550 F.3d 231 · 2008
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 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. · Xue Hong Yang v. United States Department of Justice · Ming Xia Chen v. Board of Immigration Appeals · Trichilo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any alien who— (I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or (II) has been ordered removed under section 1225(b)(1) of this title, section 1229a of this title, or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) Adjustment in status of certain aliens physically present in United States. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (c) of this section, an alien physically present in the United States— (A) who — ■ (i) entered the United States without inspection; or (ii) is within one of the classes enumerated in subsection (c) of this section; (B) who is the beneficiary (including a spouse or child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section [1153(d) of this title]) of— (i) a petition for classification under section [1154 of this title] that was filed with the Attorney General on or before April 30, 2001; or (ii) an application for a labor certification under section [1182(a)(5)(A) of this title] that was filed pursuant to the regulations of the Secretary of Labor on or before such date; and (C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for classification, or an application for labor certification, described in subparagraph (B) that was filed after January 14, 1998, is physically present in the United States on [December 21, 2000]; may apply to the Attorney General for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lemus-Losa v. Holder“[A] literal reading of section 1255® threatens to render the statute a nullity, and so it is necessary to read the statute as implicitly waiving unlawful presence as a ground for inadmissibility in certain circumstances. But whether it should be read as waiving inadmissibility only under the general section 1182(a)(6)(A)®, or whether it should read as waiving inadmissibility under the more specific section 1182(a) (9) (C) (i) (I) as well, cannot be inferred from the text of the immigration laws- alone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ramirez 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.