Kashani v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 818 · 1986
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Pet v. Department of Health Services (1988), Kaczmarczyk v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1991)
15 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 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. § 1159 (§ 209 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (§ 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Baker v. Carr · McKart v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha · Mathews v. Diaz
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the goals of judicial and administrative efficiency are promoted in requiring an alien seeking asylum to exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. ... [Ajliens may not seek district court review of the District Director’s denial of their asylum petitions and injunction of deportation proceedings but must exhaust their administrative remedies by renewing the asylum petition in the ensuing deportation proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for an alien physically present in the United States or at a land border or port of entry, irrespective of such alien’s status, to apply for asylum, and the alien may be granted asylum in the discretion of the Attorney General if the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Amanullah v. Nelson
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.