Herrera-Castillo v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.3d 1004 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
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. § 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 & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · O'neal v. Ferguson Construction Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an alien physically present in the United States who entered the United States without inspection!,] who is the beneficiary ... of a petition for classification under [ 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (providing, among other things, for alien relative petitions) ] that was filed with the Attorney General on or before April 30, 2001[,] ... and who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for classification ... 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 majority“(A) has 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) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and (D) establishes 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 majority“[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.