Diaz v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.3d 244 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang · Federal Power Commission v. Texaco Inc. · Gonzales v. Thomas
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n determining whether the BIA abused its discretion, we look only at 'the basis articulated in the decision and [we] may not assume that the [BIA] considered factors that it failed to mention in its opinion.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Alizoti , 477 F.3d at 451 (citation omitted). We will find an abuse of discretion if the Board's denial”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Though it need not write an exegesis on every contention, the BIA must consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.”
3 later decisions 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.