Hasanaj v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
385 F.3d 780 · 2004
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Giday v. Gonzales (2006), Prela v. Ashcroft (2005)
9 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
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · United States v. Mendoza-Lopez · Capric v. Ashcroft · Qun Yang v. McElroy · Balogun 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n immigration judge is permitted to interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An IJ, “unlike an Article III judge, is not merely the fact finder and adjudicator but also has an obligation to establish the record.” Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158 , 162 (2nd Cir.2002); see also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 , 410, 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (holding that an administrative law judge acts as “an examiner charged with developing facts”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tabaku v. Gonzales
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.