Selami v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[I]n the context of an asylum adjudication, there may be instances in which a respondent voluntarily and intentionally submits a document into evidence, intending to establish his eligibility for asylum, that is later shown to be coun terfeit. The adjudicator may consider whether that document points to a respondent’s lack of credibility regarding the asylum claim. Ordinarily, it is reasonable to infer that a respondent with a legitimate claim does not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate documents in order to establish asylum eligibility. ... We find that this respondent’s presentation of at least one counterfeit document, and probably two, submitted to prove a central element of the claim in an asylum adjudication, indicates his lack of credibility. We also find that the presentation of such questionable documents, in the absence of an explanation regarding such presentation, creates serious doubts regarding the respondent’s overall credibility ... and diminishes the reliability of his other evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sy v. Gonzales · Sterkaj v. Gonzales

2. “There are two provisions under which an alien can request withholding of removal: § 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3), or the CAT [Convention Against Torture], The INA withholding of removal provision ... prohibits] the deportation or removal of anyone whose life or freedom would be threatened in his or her home country on account of one of the same five grounds necessary for asylum (race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). To prevail on a petition for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must show that there is a clear probability, that is, that it is more likely than not, that she would be subject to persecution on the basis of one of these five grounds were she removed from this country.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Saliko v. Gonzales

3. “shall only be made if the immigration judge or the Board is satisfied that the applicant, during the course of the proceedings, has had sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sterkaj v. Gonzales