Ramaj v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.3d 520 · 2006
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Mapouya v. Gonzales (2007), Ceraj v. Mukasey (2007)
11 federal appellate ·
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))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Mikhailevitch v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Denko v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Guang Run Yu 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This presumption can be rebutted `only though establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that since the persecution occurred, conditions in the applicant's country have changed to such an extent that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an important sense, then, the Convention’s reach is both broader and narrower than that of a claim for asylum or with-holding of deportation: coverage is broader because a petitioner need not show that he or she would be tortured ‘on account of a protected ground; it is narrower, however, because the petitioner must show that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he or she will be tortured, and not simply persecuted upon removal to a given country.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vata v. Gonzales“unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, [his or her home country] because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kane 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.