Dorosh v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
398 F.3d 379 · 2004
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Liti v. Gonzales (2005), Mapouya v. Gonzales (2007)
21 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. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Diallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Rodriguez-Rivera v. U.S. Department of Immigration & Naturalization · Shabanali Ladha 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here it is reasonable to expect corroborating evidence for certain alleged facts pertaining to the specifics of an applicant’s claim, such evidence should be provided.... The absence of such corroborating evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration, we have upheld the BIA’s rule that where it is reasonable to expect corroborating evidence ... [t]he absence of such corroborating evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof. We have noted that supporting documentation must be provided only if it is of the type that would normally be created or available in the particular country and is accessible to the alien, such as through friends, relatives, or co-workers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“application of legal principles to undisputed facts, rather than its underlying determination of those facts or its interpretation of its governing statutes, the review of both the [IJ's] asylum and withholding of deportation determinations is de novo. " Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 , 381 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 , 287 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted)). See also, Bleta v. Gonzales, 174 Fed.Appx. 287, 291 (6th Cir.2006) ("The immigration judge's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mapouya 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.