Gor v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 180 · 2010
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 1 of the All Kids Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Taylor v. United States · Califano v. Sanders · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle · Heckler v. Chaney
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the decision whether to reopen was within the BIA's discretion, and ... the court ha[s] no jurisdiction to review [that] administrative decision”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 4 .The statutory section of the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding reopening proceedings contains the exception to the 90-day time bar. A subsequent regulatory provision promulgated by the agency contains exceptions to both the time and numerical bars to filing. The regulation copies the statutory provision nearly verbatim. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Harchenko and Barry remain good law because they were premised on the well-established principle that 'review is not to be had if the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.’ ” Id. at 195 (Batchelder, C.J., concurring) (quoting Harchenko, 379 F.3d at 411 ). 17 . Relying on the Second Circuit's opinion in Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.2006), this court defined § 1252(a)(2)(D) to include”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Rais v. Holder“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 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.