Yan Lan Wu v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.3d 418 · 2005
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice (2006), Chen v. United States Department of Justice R (2006)
22 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. § 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. § 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Chen Yun Gao v. Ashcroft · Mohamed Abdille v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States · Fatin v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Abdulrahman 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Immigration Judge need not discuss each and every piece of evidence presented by an asylum applicant when rendering a decision, as long as that decision is substantially supported.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so long as an immigration petitioner makes some effort, however insufficient, to place the Board on notice of a straightforward issue being raised on appeal, a petitioner is deemed to have exhausted her administrative remedies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the IJ erred in denying Respondent’s application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT.” In its order, the BIA noted the claims might be waived because Handoko failed to present”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.