Hamida v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.3d 734 · 2007
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Khalili v. Holder (2009), Mapouya v. Gonzales (2007)
6 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. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 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 Secaida-Rosales v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Mikhailevitch v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Guang Run Yu v. Ashcroft · Sylla v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Tan v. U.S. Attorney General
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the failure of an applicant to provide an exhaustive list of details in his original asylum application does not amount to an inconsistency warranting an adverse credibility finding, given that “the circumstances surrounding the application process do not often lend themselves to a perfectly complete and comprehensive recitation of an applicant’s claim to asylum or withholding.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'may suffer other serious harm upon removal to that country,' even in the absence of a well-founded fear of future persecution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
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.