Case Citator › Nijhawan v. Holder

Nijhawan v. Holder

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
557 U.S. 29
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
124 of 124
Citing cases (total)
687
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Nijhawan v. Holder remains good law: all 124 flagged citations have been read, and no adverse treatment was confirmed. Later courts applied its circumstance-specific inquiry for the fraud-loss threshold and its requirements that loss evidence be clear and convincing and tied to the counts of conviction.
More on how this was screened

Prudencio v. Holder applied Nijhawan's distinction between generic crimes and circumstance-specific provisions when interpreting a different part of the immigration statute. Other adverse-looking language concerned older decisions, unrelated cases, or parties' rejected arguments.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

687 later cases cite Nijhawan v. Holder; 124 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Nijhawan v. Holder?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 124 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Nijhawan v. Holder and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace