Morales v. Yeutter’s Empirical Analysis
952 F.2d 954 · 1991
Citation profile
30 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably United States v. Boyd (1995), Asika v. Ashcroft (2004)
30 federal appellate ·
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 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. · North Shore Gas Company v. Environmental Protection Agency · United States v. McKinney · Haugh v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Administrative and judicial review There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status under this section except in accordance with this subsection. (2) No review for late filings No denial of adjustment of status under this section based on a late filing of an application for such adjustment may be reviewed by a court of the United States or of any State or reviewed in any administrative proceeding of the United States Government. (3) Administrative review (A) Single level of administrative appellate review The Attorney General shall establish an appellate authority to provide for a single level of administrative appellate review of a determination described paragraph (1). (B) Standard for review Such administrative appellate review shall be based solely upon the administrative record established at the time of the determination on the application and upon such additional or newly discovered evidence as may not have been available at the time of the determination. (4) Judicial review (A) Limitation to review of deportation There shall be judicial review of such a denial only in the judicial review of an order of deportation under section 1105a of this title. (B) Standard for judicial review Such judicial review shall be based solely upon the administrative record established at the time of the review by the appellate authority and the findings of fact and determinations contained in such record shall b”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A. Section 246(a) provides, If, at any time within five years after the status of a person has been otherwise adjusted under the provisions of section 1255 or 1259 of this title or any other provision of law to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the person was not in fact eligible for such adjustment of status, the Attorney General shall rescind the action taken granting an adjustment of status to such a person and cancelling removal in the case of such person if that occurred and the person shall thereupon be subject to all provisions of this chapter to the same extent as if the adjustment of status had not been made. Nothing in this subsection shall require the Attorney General to rescind the alien’s status prior to the commencement of procedures to remove the alien under section 1229a of this title, and an order of removal issued by an immigration judge shall be sufficient to rescind the alien’s status.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Asika v. Ashcroft
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.