Zeru v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.3d 59 · 2007
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Wan Chien Kho v. Keisler (2007), Scatambuli v. Holder (2009)
22 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. § 1105A (§ 106 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu · Lozada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Rafeal Ramirez-Durazo, Rosa Isela Lopez De Ramirez, Luz Maria Ramirez-Alcaraz, Maria Sara Ramirez-Alcaraz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Javier Bernal-Vallejo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the discrepancies and omissions described by the IJ are actually present in the record; (2) those discrepancies and omissions provide specific and cogent reasons to conclude that the petitioners provided incredible testimony regarding facts central to the merits of the asylum claim; and (3) petitioners do not provide a convincing explanation for the discrepancies and omissions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phal v. Mukasey“To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioners must show 'a reasonable probability of prejudice' resulting from their former representation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gicharu v. Carr“put forth sufficiently credible testimony or other evidence to establish her eligibility for [relief].”
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.