Ivanishvili v. United States Department of Justice’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.3d 332 · 2006
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 633 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Shi Liang Lin v. United States Department of Justice (2007), Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice (2006)
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 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. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Zhang v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Secaida-Rosales v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft
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 633 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our assumption of jurisdiction to consider first the merits is not barred where the jurisdictional constraints are imposed by statute, not the Constitution, and where the jurisdictional issues are complex and the substance of the claim is, as here, plainly without merit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is well established that private acts may be persecution if the government has proved unwilling to control such actions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ on the basis of a protected statutory ground”
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.