Ramos v. Haig’s Empirical Analysis
716 F.2d 471 · 1983
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2000 · most notably Pierce v. Underwood (1988), Chiu v. United States (1991)
18 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Broad Avenue Laundry & Tailoring v. United States · Riggers Erectors Inc v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission J Standard Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc · Foster v. Tourtellotte
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“can show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and in fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that the position of the United States was substantially justified.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225 (b), an examining immigration officer must detain, for further inquiry, all aliens “who may not appear to the examining officer to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land.” Generally, examining immigration officers detain aliens whom they believe to be “excludable”, as defined by 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182 . These aliens are processed and assigned to various detention centers while INS conducts an investigation. Thereafter, a special inquiry officer conducts a hearing and decides whether aliens “shall be allowed to enter or shall be excluded and deported.” 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1226 . Thousands of aliens arrived in our country as part of the “Cuban flotilla”, approximately 2,000 of these aliens had backgrounds which warranted detention pending further inquiries. Consequently, INS assumed the responsibility of processing, detaining, and investigating a large number of aliens. These responsibilities were necessarily time consuming. Information concerning an alien’s past criminal background in a foreign land is often difficult to obtain. Still, INS was able to parole a majority of these detainees within one year. Thus, we must accept the district court’s findings that ■ INS’s general confinement of aliens for further inquiry was reasonable. With regard to INS’s long-term detention of petitioners, we note that the circumstances which justify such detention are uncertain. The Immigration and Naturalization Act does not expressly limit the time in which INS mu”
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.