← 74 F. Supp. 2d 471 - Bouayad v. Holmes

74 F. Supp. 2d 471 - Bouayad v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

cited by 17 later decisions

December 2002

most recently cited

5 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 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 · Mathews v. Diaz · Janet Reno, Attorney General v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee et al. · Foucha v. Louisiana · Carlson v. Landon

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

“[W]here, as here, a petitioner contests whether he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 , the option of ending detention by departing this country does not cure any constitutionality infirmity in the mandatory detention provisions. To hold otherwise would be to put the cart before the horse by requiring an alien who is subject to mandatory detention and not yet under a final order of removal to forego any challenges to removal proceeding in order to secure his or her liberty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 176 F. Supp. 2d 316 - Dean v. Ashcroft · 158 F. Supp. 2d 519 - Sharma v. Ashcroft
“excludable aliens with criminal records as specified in the Immigration Act may be detained for lengthy periods when removal is beyond the control of the INS, provided that appropriate provisions for parole are available. When detention is prolonged, special care must be exercised so that the confinement does not continue beyond the time when the original justifications for custody are no longer tenable. The fact that some aliens posed a risk of flight in the past does not mean they will forever fall into that category. Similarly, presenting danger to the community at one point by committing crime does not place them forever beyond redemption. Measures must be taken to assess the risk of flight and danger to the community on a current basis. The stakes are high and we emphasize that grudging and perfunctory review is not enough to satisfy the due process right to liberty, even for aliens. The process due even to excludable aliens requires an opportunity for an evaluation of the individual’s current threat to the community and his risk .of flight.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 121 F. Supp. 2d 814 - United States Ex Rel. Radoncic v. Zemski
“While the risk of flight by aliens may be significant, the public can still be protected by a careful evaluation of an individual alien’s case, which should result in the detention of those who are likely to flee.” Bouayad v. Holmes, 74 F.Supp.2d 471, 475 (E.D.Pa.1999).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 121 F. Supp. 2d 814 - United States Ex Rel. Radoncic v. Zemski

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.