Samirah v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 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 Reno v. Flores · Kansas v. Hendricks · Mathews v. Diaz · Foucha v. Louisiana · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he government cannot bypass the mandatory step of a removal hearing by granting plaintiff advance parole, revoking that parole while the plaintiff is out side of the United States, and then refusing to allow him to return to the United States____ We agree that we cannot order the Attorney General to commence removal proceedings against plaintiff, but that is not what this order accomplishes. We simply hold that the Attorney General may not bar the plaintiff from returning to the United States without providing a hearing. Whether the Attorney General decides to commence removal proceedings or to let plaintiff return to the United States to pursue his application to adjust his status is a matter for the Attorney General’s discretion. In sum, we hold that the government has a non-discretionary duty to provide plaintiff a removal hearing before removing him from the country, whether that removal is accomplished by normal procedures or by barring his travel to the United States once his advance parole was revoked. Plaintiff has a clear right to a removal hearing.”
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.