Committee of Central American Refugees ("Comite De Refugiados Centro-Americanos" or "Crece"), Political Asylum Emergency Representation Program v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Meese, Edwin R., as Attorney General of the United States, Nelson, Alan C., as Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Ilchert, David, as Director of the S.F. District of Ins, Committee of Central American Refugees v. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.2d 1434 · 1986
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft (2003), Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh (1990)
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 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 Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Harisiades v. Shaughnessy · Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong · Hernandez v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas · Board of Trade v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prudential considerations preclude[ ] interference with the Attorney General's [exercise of] discretion”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the facts demonstrate that there has been a denial of the privilege to be represented by counsel, we have ordered new deportation proceedings. See Castro-Nuno v. INS, 577 F.2d 577 , 579 (9th Cir.1978) (immigration judge abused discretion by failing to continue deportation hearing to allow alien who did not waive statutory right to counsel to locate previously retained counsel who was absent on that day); Mendez v. INS, 563 F.2d 956, 959 (9th Cir.1977) (INS’ failure to notify alien’s previously-retained counsel prior to deporting alien violated alien’s statutory right to counsel); accord Chlomos v. United States Dep’t of Justice, INS, 516 F.2d 310, 313-14 (3d Cir.1975) (notice of impending deportation proceeding should have been given to attorney of record; denial of continuances was abuse of discretion). The key factor present in each of these cases showing a constitutional deprivation is the existence of an established, on-going attorney-client relationship.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In any exclusion or deportation proceedings before a special inquiry officer and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such exclusion or deportation proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.’’”
1 later decision 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.