Reyes-Hernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
89 F.3d 490 · 1996
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Gary Laguerre v. Janet Reno, Jose, Martin Avelar-Cruz v. Janet Reno (1999), Yang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Terrazas-Garcia (1997)
49 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · MARIN · Castaneda-Suarez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Cordoba-Chaves v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provided that the applicant for discretionary relief would have had at least a colorable defense to deportability.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[J]urisdictional and procedural provisions normally are applied to pending cases ... [because] [pjeople normally don’t rely on such provisions in planning and conducting the affairs of life, and so the reliance interest which is the foundation of the interpretive principle limiting retroactive application is not engaged.”). There is no such reliance interest in the case before us. 18 . If the district court had denied the certificate. Rule 22 would permit this court to issue one. The Rule does not, however, give us the authority to correct a faulty certificate sua sponte. Fed. R.App.P. 22(b) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“on a nontrivial number of occasions vacated the Board's denial of section 212(c) relief and remanded for further proceedings”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.