Coelho v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Where, as here, 'the BIA has rendered a decision with its own analysis of the question at issue, our review focuses on the BIA's decision, not the IJ's.' " Patel v. Holder , 707 F.3d 77 , 79 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Vásquez v. Holder , 635 F.3d 563 , 565 (1st Cir. 2011) ). Two standards of review apply. "We review the BIA's legal conclusions de novo, but we afford Chevron deference to the BIA's interpretation of the [INA], including its determination that a particular crime qualifies as one of moral turpitude, unless that interpretation is 'arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law.' " Coelho v. Sessions , 864 F.3d 56 , 60 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Da Silva Neto v. Holder , 680 F.3d 25 , 28 (1st Cir. 2012) ). In this case, we give deference to the BIA's construction of the term "moral turpitude,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pena v. Sessions

2. “"conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general," or, in other words, "an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong" and is "accompanied by a vicious motive or a corrupt mind."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pena v. Sessions

3. “an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pena v. Sessions