Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 970 · 2004
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2025
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · LOZADA · Lozada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Xu Yong Lu 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Constitutional rights are rights against the government; that is, they ensure that the government will not act in a certain way.”). It is interesting to note that in Obleshchenko the Eighth Circuit stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Afanwi v. Mukasey
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.