Rios v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
287 F.3d 895 · 2002
Citation profile
32 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Bah v. Mukasey (2008), Li Chen Zheng v. Ashcroft (2003)
32 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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Prasad v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Melencio Legui Lim v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Mario Ernesto Navas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Garrovillas 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nformation about general changes in the country is insufficient for the government to overcome the presumption.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“and therefore denied asylum. The Immigration Judge also held that Gonzalez would not be entitled to relief even if he had suffered past persecution because country conditions in Guatemala have changed such that Gonzalez no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in that country. 13 The BIA disagreed with the Immigration Judge's conclusion regarding past persecution. It held that Gonzalez”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] determination of past persecution such that a petitioner's life or freedom was threatened creates a presumption of entitlement to withholding of deportation.”
2 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.