Zara v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
383 F.3d 927 · 2004
Citation profile
32 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice (2006), Bonhometre v. Gonzales (2005)
32 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. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Weinberger v. Salfi · Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft · 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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The policy underlying the exhaustion requirement is to give an administrative agency the opportunity to resolve a controversy or correct its own errors before judicial intervention.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited · Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinto Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinto Limited“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ's decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“determine[ ] that the result reached in the decision under review was correct [and] that any errors in the decision under review were harmless or nonmaterial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.