Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 348 F.3d 611 - Ahmed v. Ashcroft

Ahmed v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

348 F.3d 611 · 2003

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
May 2023
most recently cited

35 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Lin v. Ashcroft (2004), Tapiero De Orejuela v. Gonzales (2005)

35 federal appellate ·

900200320102020decided

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. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229C (§ 240b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · ACOSTA · Ravindran v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Dandan 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must also be examined to determine whether the danger flows from an ongoing violent struggle affecting the population in a relatively undifferentiated way or if danger exists on account of a protected ground; only the latter will suffice under the statute. [The petitioner] failed to offer objective support for his more speculative assertions. Moreover, the evidence did not compel the BIA to find that former members of the security and police forces in Algeria are targeted in a manner that is distinct from the risks borne by other segments of Algerian society.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one of the statutorily protected grounds, or that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted or subjected to torture upon his return to Albania.”
    1 later decision 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.