Hernandez v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
91 F.3d 776 · 1996
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2025
9 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
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Weinstein v. Bradford · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Sullivan v. Everhart · L & A Contracting Company v. Southern Concrete Services, Inc.
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.
“Under the [APA], agency action is reviewed solely to determine whether it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress has unequivocally mandated that eligible immigrants are entitled to .... authorization to be employed in the United States, and ... documentary evidence of that authorization. The INS regulation requiring an eligible immigrant to apply separately for employment authorization and documentation effectively reads [those] components ... out of the statute. This the INS may not do; it has no power to either ignore clear congressional intent or amend the legislation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“shall be granted authorization to engage in employment.”
1 later decision 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.