Mece v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.3d 562 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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 · Mikhailevitch v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Sylla v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Daneshvar v. Ashcroft · Ouda 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If presented discrepancies cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claim of persecution, they have no bearing on credibility.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is virtually no evidence that individuals are targeted for mistreatment on political grounds. Far more prevalent is organized and amateur crime, exacerbated by the widespread availability of firearms, high unemployment and poverty, continued corruption among the police and a culture of blood feud that is wholly independent of political activity. All political parties have been active in most of the country without a pattern of mistreatment, even during the dark days of 1997. There is no post-Communist tradition of retribution against political leaders and few instances thereof. Indeed the two major parties have always had multiple, unhindered television and print media outlets to present their generally biased positions. Albanians have more basis for concern over crime and unpredictable armed bands and the widespread distribution of weapons purloined from the authorities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gjelaj v. Gonzales“In conclusion, the Court notes that first, the respondent has not demonstrated any affiliation with the Democratic Party of Albania; he has not demonstrated what he [said] happened to him, happened to him in Albania. But even if he did, the country conditions have changed remarkabl[y]. The respondent indicated in his testimony, he’d go back to today’s Albania. So, there’s no reason in the Court’s view to find that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution, objectively and subjectively. He certainly hasn’t demonstrated it’s more likely than not, he would be persecuted, or he would be tortured in today’s Albania.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ndrecaj v. Mukasey
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.