Chaib v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.3d 1273 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
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. § 1227 (§ 237 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. Stevic · Elzour v. Ashcroft · Hang Kannha Yuk v. Ashcroft · Woldemeskel v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives, USA, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An IJ's finding that an applicant's testimony is implausible may not be based upon speculation, conjecture, or unsupported personal opinion . . . [but] must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Persecution is the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion, or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive, and requires more than just restrictions or threats to life and liberty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) by showing a well-founded fear of future persecution; (2) by showing past persecution sufficient to give rise to a presumption that [he] has a well-founded fear of future persecution; or (3) by showing past persecution so severe that it supports an unwillingness to return to the country where the persecution occurred. In cases in which an applicant has demonstrated past persecution, [he] shall also be presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the original claim, unless the government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that either there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality or that the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality[.]”
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.