Woldemeskel v. Immigration & Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
257 F.3d 1185 · 2001
Citation profile
43 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Wakkary v. Holder (2009), Lie v. Ashcroft (2005)
43 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Aguilera-Cota v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Kapcia 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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We apply a substantial evidence standard to the BIA’s resolution of the first step of an asylum claim.... The BIA’s determination that the applicant is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. It can be reversed only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfin-der would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. We will not, therefore, weigh the evidence or ... evaluate the witnesses’ credibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Analysis of a claim specifically based on a well-founded fear of future persecution includes both a subjective and an objective component. The applicant must first prove an objective basis by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts that would support a reasonable fear that the petitioner faces persecution. If an objective basis exists, the applicant must show her subjective fear is genuine.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“harm that is not inflicted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, but is so serious that it equals the severity of persecution.”
2 later decisions 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.