Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 735 F.2d 32 - Augustin v. Sava

Augustin v. Sava’s Empirical Analysis

735 F.2d 32 · 1984

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Jean v. Nelson (1985), Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice (2006)

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

36019841990200020102020decided

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 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Hewitt v. Helms · Meachum v. Fano · Mathews v. Diaz · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei

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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The requirements of the due process clause are flexible and dependent on the circumstances of the particular situation examined. Without attempting precisely to map the contours of due process in the immigration area, we think that the protected right to avoid deportation or return to a country where the alien will be persecuted warrants a hearing where the likelihood of persecution can be fairly evaluated.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[A] refugee who has a 'well-founded fear of persecution' in his homeland has a protectable interest recognized by both treaty and statute, and his interest in not being returned may well enjoy some due process protection not available to an alien claiming only admission.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “An unofficial entry is permitted which has no effect on the 'unadmitted' alien's status, because it does not constitute a legal entry even though the alien is physically present in the United States.”
    2 later decisions 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.