Knezevic v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.3d 1206 · 2004
Citation profile
51 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Wakkary v. Holder (2009), Sael v. Ashcroft (2004)
51 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. § 1227 (§ 237 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. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft · Kalaw v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ghaly 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ndom v. Ashcroft · Sael v. Ashcroft“Even a ten percent chance that the applicant will be persecuted in the future is enough to establish a well-founded fear.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If forced to relocate, [the Knezevics] would have great difficulty finding employment, and the destruction of their business and loss of all their possessions means they would have no means of supporting themselves. Additionally, their family members no longer reside in Bosnia-Herzegovina. .... To expect the Knezevics to start their lives over again in a new town, with no property, no home, no family, and no means of earning a living is not only unreasonable, but exceptionally harsh.”
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.