Kawashima v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.3d 1043 · 2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Shepard v. United States · Duncan v. Walker · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““an offense that— “(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or “(ii) is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the BIA is not limited to only those documents which a court applying the modified categorical approach may review,”
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.