Midi v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
566 F.3d 132 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2023
7 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. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (§ 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 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. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Mathews v. Diaz · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · United States v. Gonzales
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The petitioner] has not demonstrated that Congress had no possible rational basis to deny CSPA protection to HRI-FA applicants. Congress grants or denies many immigration benefits based on nationality, presumably to advance security, foreign relations, humanitarian, or diplomatic goals. We cannot say that Congress’s decision to deny CSPA protection to HRIFA applicants lacks any rational basis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tista v. Holder“constitutional claims or questions of law” arising from BIA orders, notwithstanding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Papayer v. Holder“afford the BIA deference under the familiar Chevron standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barahona 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.