Ke Zhen Zhao v. United States Department of Justice’s Empirical Analysis
265 F.3d 83 · 2001
Citation profile
97 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,147 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Paul v. Gonzales (2006), Zhang v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (2004)
97 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 Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · LOZADA
Cited together with Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Liu v. Gonzales
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 1,147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances where the [agency's] decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the [agency] has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”
5 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.