Al Khouri v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
362 F.3d 461 · 2004
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Subhan v. Ashcroft (2004), Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft (2004)
45 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. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Plyler v. Doe · Reno v. Flores · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · Agyeman 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is critical that the IJ 'scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts.' " Id . at 465 (quoting same). Ramirez argues the IJ should have asked "a basic set of questions above and beyond whether the statements in the application are true,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Fifth Amendment's due process clause mandates that removal hearings be fundamentally fair.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Kipkemboi and Sugut] assert that the hearing transcript was of such a poor quality that reopening is warranted. While the transcript contains several ‘indiscernibles,’ these deficiencies do not render the record insufficient for our review. Moreover, the respondents have failed to show that their claims for relief were not fully presented or understood. Third, the respondents assert these removal proceedings should be reopened due to the Immigration Judge’s improper conduct. Specifically they assert that the Immigration Judge interfered in the proceedings by posing too many questions. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically authorizes the Immigration Judge to “interrogate, examine and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.” In fact, the record reveals that the Immigration Judge was attentive and trying to develop the record.”
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.