Arif v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 677 · 2007
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Kane v. Holder (2009), Taylor v. Acxiom Corp. (2010)
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. § 1158 (§ 208 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Russello v. United States · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Stevic · Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute providing for asylum expressly includes a provision for derivative beneficiaries, but the statute providing for withholding of removal makes no mention of derivative relief. In the absence of language regarding derivative beneficiaries similar to that found in the asylum statute, we cannot infer that Congress intended withholding of removal to apply to the spouse and minor children of an applicant who do not independently qualify for relief. Indeed, precisely the opposite inference must be made from the presence of such language in one statute and the absence thereof in the other statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)(A), withholding of removal is a mandatory form of relief if an alien's life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Revencu v. Sessions“The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Revencu v. Sessions
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.