J-S’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (§ 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 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. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Smith v. United States · Pegram v. Herdrich
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[wjhere ... a case that was decided principally on the basis of the [pre-J-S-] rule appears to involve credible evidence of threats or action against the applicant that might support relief under [J-S-], but that were not adequately considered or developed before the Immigration Judge, it may be an appropriate exercise of the Board’s discretion to order a remand.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[Section 601(a) ] is properly read to refer to the person physically forced to abort the pregnancy (the would-be mother) because the clause refers to “a person forced to abort a pregnancy,” and not to “a couple” or “a married couple” forced to do so. Section 601(a)’s subsequent description of an abortion as a “procedure” that “a person” is forced to “undergo” further supports this reading. Because this latter description of a forced abortion can naturally be read only to refer to one person — the person upon whom the “procedure” is physically performed — it would be inconsistent with the text and structure of section 601(a) to read the opening clause on abortion to encompass two people (the would-be mother and the would-be father).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Yi Ni v. Holder“he or she has a well-founded fear of being forced to undergo an abortion or involuntary sterilization procedure;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lin v. US ATTY. GEN.
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.