Mostafa v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
395 F.3d 622 · 2005
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Yan Chen v. Gonzales (2005), Poradisova v. Gonzales (2005)
10 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 Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Navaratwam Kamalthas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Zubeda v. Ashcroft · Klawitter v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Samer Mansour 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n determining whether an alien is entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture, all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture in the proposed country of removal shall be considered, including, but not limited to: past torture inflicted upon the applicant; evidence that the applicant could relocate to another part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured; gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights; and other relevant information regarding conditions in the country of deportation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fail[ed] to give adequate consideration to the country conditions in Iran.”
2 later decisions 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.