Klene v. Napolitano’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.3d 666 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 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))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Kontrick v. Ryan
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“-Except as otherwise provided in this sub-chapter, no person shall be naturalized unless he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. The burden of proof shall be upon such person to show that he entered the United States lawfully, and the time, place, and manner of such entry into the United States, but in presenting such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his immigrant visa, if any, or of other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry, in the custody of the Service. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b), and except as provided in sections 1439- and 1440 of this title no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of de-portability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act; and no application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the. applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act; Provided, That the findings of the Attorney General in terminating removal proceedings or in canceling the removal of an alien pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall not be deemed binding in any way upon the Attorney General with respect to the question of ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Aljabri v. Holder · Yith v. Nielsen“[T]he agency has issued a regulation providing that a "notice to appear” in a removal proceeding should be treated as a "warrant of arrest” too. 8 C.F.R. § 318.1 . An agency can’t rewrite statutory terms, but it can define its own vocabulary. Since "arrest” does npt imply custody even in police parlance (full custodial arrests are a subject of all arrests), there’s no logical problem’with an agency calling its official process a "notice to appear” and a "warrant of arrest at the same time, without needing to issue two separate documents. On this, at least, all other ’courts of appeal agree, and we join them, ■ '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A judge asked to enter a declaratory judgment that as a practical matter will dispose of some other case should consider whether a multi-track course of litigation is the best way to resolve the dispute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.