Baballah v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.3d 1067 · 2004
Citation profile
61 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Zehatye v. Gonzales (2006), Wakkary v. Holder (2009)
61 federal appellate ·
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. § 1105A (§ 106 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. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Kalaw v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Saideh Fisher 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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In these circumstances, to provide [DHS] with another opportunity to present evidence of changed country conditions, when it twice had the chance but failed to do so, would be exceptionally unfair.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In evaluating whether the applicant has sustained the burden of proving that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, the asylum officer or immigration judge shall not require the applicant to provide evidence that there is a reasonable possibility he or she would be singled out individually for persecution if: (A) The applicant establishes that there is a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality or, if stateless, in his or her country of last habitual residence, of persecution- of a group of persons similarly situated to. the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and (B) The applicant establishes his or her own inclusion in, and identification with, such group of persons such that his or her fear of persecution upon return is reasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here the petitioner establishes that many members of his or her group are targeted for persecution, less of an individualized showing is required to qualify for asylum, not more. ... [T]hat other Indian Fijians have faced persecution similar to the persecution Chand suffered strengthens, rather than weakens, his claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sinha v. Holder
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.