Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.3d 315 · 2006
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,014 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey (2008), Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey (2008)
98 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Duncan v. Walker · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
Cited together with Paul v. Gonzales · Majidi v. Gonzales · Yan Chen v. Gonzales · Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey · Cao He Lin v. United States Department of Justice
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 2,014 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“study the arguments asserted ... to determine, regardless of the rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices, in which case the court would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises a “constitutional claim” or “question of law,” in which case the court could exercise jurisdiction to review those particular issues.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arise for example in fact-finding which is flawed by an error of law, such as might arise where the IJ states that his decision was based on petitioner’s failure to testify to some pertinent fact when the record of the hearing reveals unambiguously that the petitioner did testify to that fact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Khan v. Gonzales · Doe v. Sessions“essentially dispute the correctness of [the] IJ'5 fact-finding,”
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.