Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 406 F.3d 110 - Xu Duan Dong v. Ashcroft

Xu Duan Dong v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

406 F.3d 110 · 2005

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
August 2021
most recently cited

27 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Paul v. Gonzales (2006), Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice (2006)

27 federal appellate ·

1570200520102020decided

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 Zhang v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Secaida-Rosales v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft · Wu Biao Chen v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Yu Sheng Zhang v. United States Department of Justice

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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]here the IJ's adverse credibility finding is based on specific examples in the record of inconsistent statements by the asylum applicant about matters material to his claim of persecution, or on contradictory evidence or inherently improbable testimony regarding such matters, a reviewing court will generally not be able to conclude that a reasonable adjudicator was compelled to find otherwise.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an essential factual allegation underlying petitioner's asylum claim”
    3 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.