Carpio v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.3d 1091 · 2010
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Utah District Court)
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. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (§ 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1186 · 8 U.S.C. § 1186A (§ 216 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. § 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. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · United States v. Mead Corp. · Robinson v. Shell Oil 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant (or, in the case of a minor child, the parent) to [a] citizen.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Decisions as precedents. Except as Board decisions may be modified or overruled by the Board or the Attorney General, decisions of the Board, and decisions of the Attorney General, shall be binding on all officers and employees of the Department of Homeland Security or immigration judges in the administration of the immigration laws of the United States. By majority vote of the permanent Board members, selected decisions of the Board rendered by a three-member panel or by the Board en banc may be designated to serve as precedents in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. Selected decisions designated by the Board, decisions of the Attorney General, and decisions of the Secretáry of Homeland Security to the extent authorized in paragraph (i) of this section, shall serve as precedents in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dhuka v. Holder“(i) ... the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the United States ... who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission; [and] (iii) ... the minor child of an alien described in clause (i) ... accompanying, or following to join, the alien[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Regis 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.