Sevoian v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.3d 166 · 2002
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 548 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Dia v. Ashcroft (2003), Zubeda v. Ashcroft (2003)
63 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 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 · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Fedaa al Najjar Mazen al Najjar v. John Ashcroft Attorney General US Department of Justice · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang
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 548 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Torture is defined as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, it may hold that the movant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought.... Second, it may hold that the movant has failed to introduce previously unavailable, material ev idence that justifies reopening, as required by regulation. Third, in ‘cases in which the ultimate grant of relief [being sought] is discretionary (asylum, suspension of deportation, and adjustment of status, but not withholding of deportation),’ the Board can ‘leap ahead ... over the two threshold concerns (prima facie case and new evidence/reasonable explanation) and simply determine that even if they were met, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief.’”
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.