Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 378 F.3d 959 - Chun He Li v. Ashcroft

Chun He Li v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

378 F.3d 959 · 2004

Citation profile

689
cited by 689 later decisions
September 2021
most recently cited

29 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 689 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Singh v. Gonzales (2006), Husyev v. Mukasey (2008)

29 federal appellate ·

4730200420102020decided

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

Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft

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

  1. “[m]y [colleague] and I differ on what is the appropriate appellate function. He would retry. I am content to review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “to view statements given during airport interviews as valuable impeachment sources because of the conditions under which they are taken and because a newly-arriving alien cannot be expected to divulge every detail of the persecution he or she sustained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “affirmatively denied any mistreatment by the Chinese Government . . . and explained that he left China for financial reasons.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.