Singh v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
362 F.3d 1164 · 2004
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Singh v. Gonzales (2006), Zetino v. Holder (2010)
21 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1158 (§ 208 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. Ventura · Farah v. Ashcroft · Saideh Fisher v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Varsha Tushar Shah v. Immigration and 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives the Attorney General discretion to grant political asylum to any alien deemed to be a “refugee” within the meaning of § 101(a)(42)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1). “A refugee is defined as an alien unwilling to return to his or her country of origin ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ ” Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 , 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A)). Thus, to be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish “either past persecution or a well-founded fear of present persecution on account of [a protected ground].” Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720 , 723 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mihalev v. Ashcroft“one need not exhaust administrative remedies that would be futile or impossible to exhaust.”
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.