Lam v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.3d 529 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998) · 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 Iglesias v. Mukasey · Ali v. Achim · Li Fang Huang v. Mukasey · Olowo v. Ashcroft · Khan 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(h) Waiver of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E) The Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of subpara-graphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2) of this section and subparagraph (A)(i)(II) of such subsection insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana if — • (1)(A) in the case of any immigrant it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that- — • (1) the alien is inadmissible only under subparagraph (D)(i) or (D)(ii) of such subsection or the activities for which the alien is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of the alien’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, (ii) the admission to the United States of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States, and (iii) the alien has been rehabilitated; or (B) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien's denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien; or (C) the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner; and (2) the Attorney General, in his discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as he may by regulations pr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 242(a)(2)(B) of the INA generally deprives courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of immigration relief.”), we nevertheless retain jurisdiction to evaluate constitutional claims or questions of law raised in conjunction with a discretionary determination, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D). We therefore have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Reyes-Cornejo’s claims that the IJ failed to adhere to specific regulatory and statutory requirements when conducting the removal proceedings. 36 . Although 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (h) is limited to”
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.