56 F. Supp. 2d 1149 - Phan v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he critical inquiry, therefore, is whether an alien’s detention is excessive in relation to these government interests. In making this determination, we must necessarily balance the likelihood that the government will be able to effectuate deportation, against the dangerousness of a petitioner and the likelihood that he will abscond if released. In so doing, it becomes clear that as the probability that the government can actually deport an alien decreases, the government’s interest in detaining that alien becomes less compelling and the invasion into the alien’s liberty more severe. Dangerousness and flight risk are thus permissible considerations and may, in certain situations, warrant continued detention, but only if there is a realistic chance that an alien will be deported. Detention by the INS can be lawful only in aid of deportation. Thus, it is ‘excessive’ to detain an alien indefinitely if deportation will never occur.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sengchanh v. Lanier · 63 F. Supp. 2d 1278 - Thien Van Vo v. Greene

2. “(1) The nature and seriousness of the alien’s criminal convictions; (2) Other criminal history; (3) Sentence(s) imposed and time actually served; (4) History of failures to appear for court (defaults); (5) Probation history; (6) Disciplinary problems while incarcerated; (7) Evidence of rehabilitative effort or recidivism; (8) Equities in the United States; and (9) Prior immigration violations and history.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tin Trong Nguyen v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Zadvydas v. Davis

3. “As the Washington panel observed: Petitioners’ liberty interest is fundamental and deserving of due process protection. As a general rule, government invasions of fundamental liberty interest are subject to strict scrutiny review: a deprivation will comport with due process only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tin Trong Nguyen v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · 63 F. Supp. 2d 1278 - Thien Van Vo v. Greene