Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 388 F.3d 643 - El-Sheikh v. Ashcroft

El-Sheikh v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

388 F.3d 643 · 2004

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
August 2022
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Ren v. Holder (2011), Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales (2005)

29 federal appellate · 1 district ·

290200420102020decided

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. § 1158 (§ 208 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 Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Diallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Abdulai v. Ashcroft · Qiu v. Ashcroft · Shabanali Ladha 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““That is, an asylum applicant should provide documentary support for material facts which are central to his or her claim and easily subject to verification, such as evidence of his or her place of birth, ... or documentation of medical treatment.... The absence of such corroborating evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet [his] burden of proof.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the absence of corroborating evidence cannot be sustained if “the BIA [or the IJ] failed to: (1) rule explicitly on the credibility of [the applicant’s] testimony; (2) explain why it was reasonable ... to expect additional corroboration; or (3) assess the sufficiency of [the applicant’s] explanations for the absence of corroborating evidence.””
    1 later decision 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.