Barnes v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.3d 801 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (§ 310 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (§ 318 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (§ 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Auer v. Robbins · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife · United States v. Fisher · Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an alien in removal proceedings does not have a right to have his application adjudicated [by the agency],” and therefore”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As discussed above, due to the pendency of removal proceedings against him, Barnes had no statutory right to adjudication of his application. In any event, § 1447(b) did not apply here because DHS never held an examination for Barnes's naturalization application. Barnes does not argue that he would be entitled to compel the scheduling of an interview. Therefore the [BIA's] Hidalgo interpretation did not deprive Barnes of a right under § 1447 because, even if the IJ had cancelled removal proceedings, no such right would have been triggered in Barnes's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dilone v. Nielsen“An immigration judge may terminate removal proceedings to permit the alien to proceed to a final hearing on a pending application or petition for naturalization when the alien has established prima facie eligibility for naturalization and the matter involves exceptionally appealing or humanitarian factors; in every other case, the removal hearing shall be completed as promptly as possible notwithstanding the pendency of an application for naturalization....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shewchun v. Holder
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.