Ochoa v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The APA is not an independent jurisdictional provision. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105-06 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The APA is a procedural statute that provides no substantive requirements but merely provides the framework for judicial review of agency action. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 789, 792 (8th Cir.1996). The Supreme Court's recent proscription against "drive-by jurisdictional rulings" compels us to make this distinction in the interest of facilitating the clarity sought by the Court. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 , 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1244 , 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) (quotation omitted); see also Oryszak v. Sullivan, 576 F.3d 522, 524-25 (D.C.Cir.2009) (explaining that a federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a claim under the APA, but because the APA does not apply to agency action committed to agency discretion by law, a plaintiff who challenges such an action cannot state a claim under the APA and the court will properly grant a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim). When a plaintiff complains about an action that is committed to agency discretion by law, it does not mean that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Instead, it means that there is no law to apply because the court has no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s unfettered exercise of discretion. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 , 105 S.Ct. 1649 , 84 L.Ed.2d 71”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 F. Supp. 3d 927 - Target Training International, Ltd. v. Lee

2. “Petitioners concede that the Motion to Reopen was filed outside the 90 day limitation period which is generally applicable to Motions to Reopen. Nevertheless, .... [t]he BIA may, at its discretion, reopen any case in which it has rendered a decision.... The central issue in this case is whether the BIA improperly refused to exercise its discretion to reopen the proceedings against Petitioners.”); Admin. R. at 17 (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sandra Quezada-Andino v. Eric Holder, Jr.

3. “is a procedural statute that . . . merely provides the framework for judicial review of agency action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. MA Ex Rel. PK v. VILLAGE VOICE MEDIA HOLDINGS