Delgado v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.3d 702 · 2007
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Bah v. Mukasey (2008), Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008)
18 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Secaida-Rosales v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Cao He Lin v. United States Department of Justice · Wei Guang Wang v. Board of Immigration Appeals · Shi Liang Lin v. United States Department of Justice · Chen v. United States 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Romero v. Mukasey“[Persecution on account of one ground [does not] preclude[] a well-grounded fear of future persecution on account of another. [The petitioner] did testify, as the BIA emphasized, that the FARC [initially] targeted her because of her knowledge of her computers, a reason unrelated to political opinion. But she also testified that she would be targeted by the FARC in the future for betraying them, which, when coupled with the government’s unwillingness to control the FARC, could well qualify as persecution for an imputed political opinion (opposition to the FARC).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The IJ and the BIA conducted no particularized analysis as to whether [the petitioner] met the standard for withholding of removal.... Rather, the agency reasoned that an applicant who cannot meet the standard for asylum cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Because we are remanding this case for further consideration of ... [the] asylum claim, ... [the] withholding of removal claim must be reconsidered as well.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Acharya v. Holder
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.