Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
563 F.3d 800 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3607 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229C (§ 240b 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · District of Columbia v. Heller · Mathews v. Diaz · Demore District Director San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service et al. v. Kim · Molina-Estrada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) [have] been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) [have] been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) [not have] been convicted of an offense under [8 U.S.C. § ]1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) ..., subject to [certain exceptions for victims of domestic violence]; and (D) establish[] that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rice v. Holder“an alien cannot be deemed “convicted” for immigration purposes if he can demonstrate that (1) the conviction was his first offense; (2) he had not previously been accorded first offender treatment; (3) his conviction was for possession of drugs, or an equivalent or lesser charge such as possession of drug paraphernalia ...; and (4) he received relief under a state rehabilitative statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reduce[s] the long-term impact of criminal convictions on individuals who subsequently demonstrate a period of good behavior”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Prado v. Barr
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.