C-W-L’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Williams v. Taylor · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he cited regulatory history nowhere states that an alien may file unlimited “successive asylum applications” after the entry of a final administrative order of removal without filing a motion to reopen. At best, the cited regulatory provisions implementing [ 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(D)] are silent on the issue of reopening, most likely because the requirement of an accompanying motion to reopen once a final order of removal has been entered is clearly set forth in other parts of the statutory and regulatory scheme.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Yuen Jin v. Mukasey“[T]he language at section [1158(a)(2)(D)] and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 that permits an updated or successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances applies in conjunction with section [1229a(e)(7)(C] and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 (c) and 1003.23(b) to permit such an application at any time during proceedings before the entry of a final order of removal or within the 90-day deadline for a motion to reopen. Outside of those circumstances, changed country conditions must be shown.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]n application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding [the time and number restrictions], if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.