Wang v. Ashcroft US’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering ... is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her ... information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she ... has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her ... or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arunasasam v. Attorney General of the United States · Zira v. Attorney General

2. “Wang argues that 2000 Report provides a non-exhaustive list of persons who might be tortured and should not be read as an exclusive list. However, he fails to provide any objective evidence why he, as a first-time illegal immigrant, would be more likely than not to be treated similarly. Although the BIA noted that the 2000 Report stated that returning illegal immigrants may face fines and second-time illegal immigrants or political dissidents may face re-education or labor camps, Wang has provided no evidence — as is it’s burden of proof — to establish that he personally would be more likely than not to be tortured upon return. Wang suggested the BIA should have assumed first-time returning immigrants should have been included within the list of groups likely to be tortured because of the difficulty of monitoring human rights violations in China. Such an assumption would provide an automatic CAT protection to all persons returning to China. While we certainly do not intend to suggest our approval of a practice in China subjecting returning immigrants to prosecution and subsequent punishment, if existent, we are not in a position to express a view in this matter. Lacking a Congressional directive to grant the CAT claims from all Chinese immigrants who allege the possibility of detention or imprisonment upon their removal to China, there is no reason for the BIA or this court to adopt such a rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zhong Kai Zhou v. Ashcroft

3. “the standard for invocation of the [Convention Against Torture] is more stringent than the standard for granting asylum”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Celaj v. Attorney General of United States