Brezilien v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.3d 403 · 2009
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Rodriguez v. Holder (2012), Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder (2013)
13 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))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Barron v. Ashcroft · Ghaly v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ramadan v. Gonzales · Negusie v. Holder
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With respect to asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims of a petitioner who was convicted of an offense covered by § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction to review the denial of an asylum application and to review the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief when a petitioner raises questions of law, including mixed questions of law and fact, or constitutional claims. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972 , 978-80 (9th Cir.2007)[, abrogated on other grounds by Anayar-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 , 678 (9th Cir.2010) ]. Moreover, as to “factual issues, when an IJ does not rely on an alien’s conviction in denying CAT relief and instead denies relief on the merits, none of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions ... apply to divest this court of jurisdiction.” Id. at 980; see also Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 , 942 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pechenkov v. Holder“(1) the Board will not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by the immigration judge; and (2) except for the taking of administrative notice of commonly known facts, the Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.” Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403 , 412 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009); Ridore, 696 F.3d at 911 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reyes v. Lynch
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.