Slyper v. Attorney General Baquero’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 821 · 1987
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2018
10 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 22 U.S.C. § 2452 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Heckler v. Chaney · Abourezk v. Reagan · Wise v. Kaiser
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that upon the favorable recommendation of the Director of the United States Information Agency, pursuant to the request of ... the Commissioner of [INS] ..., the Attorney General may waive the requirement....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Raoof v. Sullivan · Singh v. Moyer“No person admitted under section 1101(a)(15)(J) of this title ... who came to the United States or acquired such status in order to receive graduate medical education or training, shall be eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, or for permanent residence, or for a nonimmigrant visa ... until it is established that such person has resided and been physically present in the country of his nationality or his last residence for an aggregate of at least two years following departure from the United States[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Raoof v. Sullivan“[i]t is clear from the face of the statute that Congress intended to vest maximum discretion in the Director to oppose waivers requested by visiting physicians. The statute contains no standard or criterion upon which the Director is to base a decision to make or withhold a favorable recommendation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Raoof v. Sullivan
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.