Kumar v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.3d 1019 · 2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
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 · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Farah v. Ashcroft · Ghaly v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Chun He Li 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. at 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 , 1156 (9th Cir.2003). And, when an IJ compiles multiple reasons for disbelieving the applicant, we must accept the IJ's finding even if only one reason that goes to the heart of the applicant's claim is supported by substantial evidence. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959 , 964 (9th Cir.2004). The majority dutifully recites this standard of review, see maj. at 1049-50, but its analysis belies the deference an IJ is due. See Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883 , 890 (9th Cir.2005) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Kumar v. Gonzales“including those already in police custody. Raj's fear of such persecution is certainly based upon individualized risk — the police's erroneous belief that he was a terrorist caused him to be subjected to a month-long detention that included severe physical attacks and threats to his life. We may consider the reasonableness of Raj's fear”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kumar v. Gonzales“[Raj] has no political contact nor associations with any group whatsoever. He had no contacts with any militants.... Here, questions were asked and a confession requested. That was the extent of the testimony about a nexus about the harm suffered and one of the five enumerated grounds from the respondent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kumar v. Gonzales
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.