Vaduva v. Immigration & Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
131 F.3d 689 · 1997
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Ngarurih v. Ashcroft (2004), Voci v. Gonzales (2005)
24 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 Sivaainkaran v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Skalak v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Gramatikov v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nly in rare cases is past per-secution `so severe that it would be inhumane to return the alien to his native country even in the absence of any risk of future persecution.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If it is reasonable to suspect the State Department has a tendency to soft-pedal human rights violations, it may be just as reasonable to suspect that Amnesty International exaggerates them so they will not go without notice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“probative of present conditions in Romania, and therefore of the risk [the alien] presently faces if he were to return to his native country.”
1 later decision 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.