Jean Patrick Michel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
206 F.3d 253 · 2000
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Diallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2000), Demore District Director San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service et al. v. Kim (2003)
88 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Union
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.”)). 7 . Wang had previously filed two petitions for political asylum, but neither of these earlier applications mentioned the alleged physical torture by the military that is the subject of his most recent asylum application as well as his CAT claims. 8 . INA § 101(a)(43)(G) provides that the term”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Corrupt scienter is the touchstone of moral turpitude.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“)], Chevron deference is warranted, but where the BIA is interpreting state or federal criminal laws, we must review its decision de novo.”
3 later decisions 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.