Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 603 F.3d 32 - United States v. Cerna

United States v. Cerna’s Empirical Analysis

603 F.3d 32 · 2010

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
October 2021
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Padilla v. Kentucky · Rabiu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Saleh v. United States Department of Justice · Doe v. Menefee · United States v. Fernandez-Antonia

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “bar collateral attack on the [deportation] order in a subsequent illegal reentry prosecution under [ Section] 1326(d)”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Such a]dverse factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue; (2) other immigration law violations; (3) the alien’s criminal record; and (4) evidence indicative of an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident. Favorable factors include: (1) family ties to the United States; (2) many years of residency in the United States; (3) hardship to the alien and his family upon deportation; (4) United States military service; (5) employment history; (6) community service; (7) property or business ties; (8) evidence attesting to good character; and, in the case of a convicted criminal, (9) proof of genuine rehabilitation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]n alien may not challenge the validity of the deportation order ... unless the alien demonstrates that — (1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.