Chavarria v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
446 F.3d 508 · 2006
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably En Hui Huang v. Attorney General of the United States (2010), Sioe Tjen Wong v. Attorney General of United States (2008)
19 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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. § 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 · Chen Yun Gao v. Ashcroft · Dia v. Ashcroft · Abdulai v. Ashcroft · Mohamed Abdille v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Board will not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except for taking administrative notice of commonly known facts such as current events or the contents of official documents, the Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his case [has] at least an element of objection of his own with an element of possibility of actions against him have been met and that is sufficient for the Court to establish a well-founded fear of persecution at that moment. Obviously, returning the Respondent to the People’s Republic of China at this moment may subject him to summarization of actions or obviously sees the wife has been already sterilized, still sterilizing or subjecting the Respondent to an effect on the operation does not make too much sense. However, that would be speculative on the Court to determine what actions if any the Government of the People’s Republic of China may subject upon the Respondent if he is returned at this stage and the Court feels it does not have to engage in that. Suffice it to say that on the record that I have examined, the Court finds that the Respondent has established a meaning on threshold on the theory of the well founded fear of persecution independent from the actions taken against his wife, again, based on the supposition to those actions and the threat to him of possible incarceration.”
1 later decision 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.