Turay v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
405 F.3d 663 · 2005
Citation profile
44 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey (2008), Setiadi v. Gonzales (2006)
44 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. Stevic · Pilica v. Ashcroft · Ngure v. Ashcroft · Perinpanathan 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An alien may not be removed if the alien shows there is a clear probability that his life, or freedom would be threatened in [the alien’s] country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The standard for withholding of removal, a clear probability of persecution, is more rigorous than the well-founded fear standard for asylum. An alien who fails to prove eligibility for asylum cannot meet the standard for establishing withholding of removal.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An applicant for protection under the [CAT] must establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if returned to the proposed country of removal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining eligibility under CAT, `all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture should be considered, including but not limited to: past torture inflicted upon the applicant; the applicant's ability to relocate to another area of the country where torture is unlikely; and gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.'”
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.