Budhathoki v. Nielsen’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.3d 504 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2024
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (§ 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Camp v. Pitts · Underwriters National Assurance Company v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association · 54 Cal. 4th 610 - Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. William C.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“USCIS policy guidance referenced by the district court has the agency look even more searchingly than we are discussing here. It directs USCIS to decide whether the SIJ benefit was 'sought primarily for the purpose of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, rather than for the purpose of obtaining relief from abuse or neglect [or abandonment.]' USCIS Interoffice Memorandum from William R. Yates, Assoc. Dir. for Operations, to Reg. Dirs. & Dist. Dirs. (May 27, 2004), at 2. Neither the USCIS nor the district court made a finding about 'primary purpose.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification may only be granted upon the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to juveniles who meet all other eligibility criteria and establish that the requisite juvenile court or administrative determinations were sought to gain relief from parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law, and not primarily to obtain an immigration benefit.”
2 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.