Lie v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
396 F.3d 530 · 2005
Citation profile
43 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 593 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Wakkary v. Holder (2009), Lolong v. Gonzales (2007)
43 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Chen Yun Gao v. Ashcroft · Abdulai v. Ashcroft · Mohamed Abdille v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States · Fatin v. Immigration & 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 593 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he evidence in the record does not establish that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. The INA regulations do not define what country conditions constitute a “pattern or practice of persecution,” and this court has yet to provide further clarification of the standard. At the threshold, we agree with other courts that have held that, to constitute a “pattern or practice,” the persecution of the group must be “systemic, pervasive, or organized.” Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 991 (8th Cir.2004); see also Woldemeskel v. INS, 257 F.3d 1185, 1191 (10th Cir.2001). At all events, as with any claim of persecution, violence or other harm perpetrated by civilians against the petitioner’s group does not constitute persecution unless such acts are “committed by the government or forces the government is either ‘unable or unwilling’ to control.” Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Yan Lan Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418 , 2005 WL 14754, (3rd Cir.2005). Petitioners argue, with some force, that anti-Chinese violence persists, citing evidence in the record of widespread attacks on Chinese Christians in Indonesia, including press accounts of riots, vandalism, and robbery targeting Chinese Christians. Nevertheless, such violence does not appear to be sufficiently widespread as to constitute a pattern or practice. The 1999 Country Report on Indonesia indicated that there was a sharp decline in violence against Chines”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution an applicant must first demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution through credible testimony that [his] fear is genuine. Second, the applicant must show, objectively, that “a reasonable person in the alien’s circumstances would fear persecution if returned to the country in question.” To satisfy the objective prong, a petitioner must show [he] would be individually singled out for persecution or demonstrate that “there is a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality ... of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ... and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion....”
4 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.