Zhang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.3d 289 · 2003
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Liu v. Gonzales (2006), Infanzon v. Ashcroft (2004)
49 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States v. Zannino · Gailius v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Fesseha v. Ashcroft
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we will find an abuse of discretion if the denial was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis (such as race).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”); Zhang v. INS, 348 F.3d 289, 293 (1st Cir.2003) (“The purpose of a motion to reconsider is not to raise new facts, but to demonstrate that the [Board] erred as a matter of law or fact.”). The Board, itself, interpreted the motion as a motion to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”
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.