Ali v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.3d 780 · 2005
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Nuru v. Gonzales (2005), Delgado v. U.S. Attorney General (2007)
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))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the fact that Ali fortuitously evaded detection by the government while living illegally in Ethiopia does not allow for a finding that Ali was firmly resettled.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the grant of asylum is discretionary, withholding of removal is mandatory if the petitioner establishes that upon removal from the United States her “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of one of the five protected grounds. INA § 241(b)(3)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)(A). The standard of proof required to establish eligibility for withholding of removal is higher than the standard for establishing eligibility for asylum. Compare INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 , 104 S.Ct. 2489 , 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984) (“clear probability” standard under former withholding statute) with INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 , 107 S.Ct. 1207 , 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987) (asylum standard).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Karouni v. Gonzales“Id. at 790 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, we explained, Cheo turned on the absence of evidence to the contrary and, as Ali testified that she never received an offer of permanent residence in Ethiopia, the presumption did not arise. In addition, we emphasized that because the plain language of the regulation requires an offer of permanent residence, an offer of temporary residence does not compel a finding of firm resettlement. B 30 The IJ in this case understood a rebuttable presumption to arise under Cheo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maharaj 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.