Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 1213 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 1182 (§ 212 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. § 1229B (§ 240a 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. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · United States v. Mead Corp. · Auer v. Robbins
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the issue of whether an LPR retains her status until the conclusion of removal proceedings is distinct from whether she was 'lawfully admitted’ in the first place so that she may seek relief from removal....” Shin, 607 F.3d at 1218 ; accord Savoury, 449 F.3d at 1314 . While Gallimore’s argument is off the mark, the question of when his status was adjusted to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the facts of ... Koloam-atangi involve[d] acts of personal fraud or misrepresentation, [its] holding! ] broadly deem[s] all grants of LPR status that were not in substantive compliance with the immigration laws to be void ab initio.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he weight accorded to an administrative judgment in a particular case will depend upon [among other factors] the thoroughness evident in its consideration”). That is, we need not defer because the BIA’s order has no”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.