Waugh v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.3d 1279 · 2011
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 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 Strickland v. Washington · Padilla v. Kentucky · Paredes v. Attorney General of United States · Zinnanti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Trench v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]either the [immigration judge] nor die BIA has authority to adjudicate the constitutionality of an underlying criminal conviction.”). Moreover, Mr. Aguilar provides no support for such a novel remedy, and we could locate none. Mr. Aguilar raises an incidental argument that his due process right to a full and fair deportation hearing is being denied because he lacks the ability to challenge the underlying”
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.