Perez v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.3d 17 · 2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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))
Relies on Henry v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Conteh v. Gonzales · VELASQUEZ · Elysee v. Gonzales · Ayeni v. Holder
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.
“an immigration court may generally consider a police report . . . when making a discretionary immigration decision, even if an arrest did not result in a charge or conviction,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Garland · Rosa v. Garland
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.