Waldron v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
688 F.3d 354 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 - PICKERING · Mejia v. Gonzales · 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 - JEAN · Hailemichael v. Gonzales
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.
“[T]he .statutory terms “violent or dangerous crimes” and “crime of violence” are not synonymous and the determination that a crime is a violent or dangerous crime under 8 C.F.R. § [l]212.7(d) is not dependent on it having been found to be a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 or an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act.,.. Nevertheless, we will use the definition of a crime of violence found in 18 U.S.C. § 16 as guidance in determining whether a crime is a violent crime under 8 C.F.R, § [l]212.7(d), considering also other common meanings of the terms “violent” and “dangerous.” The term “dangerous” is not defined specifically by 18 U.S.C. § 16 or any other relevant statutory provision. Thus, in general, we interpret the terms “violent” and “dangerous” in accordance with their plain or common meanings, and consistent with any rulings found in published precedent decisions addressing discretionary denials under the standard described in 8 C.F.R. § [11212.7(d).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the BIA has the discretion to weigh the IJ's factual findings differently than the IJ when making the ultimate determination of whether an applicant demonstrated 'exceptional or extremely unusual hardship'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adeyanju v. Garland“there is a difference between weighing the factual findings of the IJ and reweighing the underlying evidence and testimony behind those factual findings to reach new factual conclusions,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adeyanju v. Garland
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.