Upatcha v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.3d 181 · 2017
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1186A (§ 216 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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 Auer v. Robbins · Massis v. Mukasey · Martinez v. Holder · Turkson v. Holder · Cho v. Gonzales
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only to 'the specific findings of fact' " of immigration judges. Id. (quoting 67 Fed. Reg. at 54 ,890 ). With respect to mixed questions of law and fact, the agency made clear, the Board would defer to an immigration judge's factual findings but "retain [its] independent judgment and discretion ... regarding ... application of the standard of law to those facts .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“application of the law to ... facts--to determine, for example, whether those facts amount to 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duncan v. Barr“whether the credited evidence meets the good faith marriage standard is a legal question subject to de novo review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alom v. Whitaker
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.