Corovic v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.3d 90 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 656 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Anim v. Mukasey (2008), Kone v. Holder (2010)
8 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. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 United States Department of State v. Ray · Siewe v. Gonzales · O-D · Borovikova v. United States Department of Justice · Zhen Nan 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 656 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] violation of section 208.6 could compel this Court, as it did in Zhen Nan Lin to “hold that the Consular Report [produced by the foreign government] is inherently unreliable and cannot support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding.” Id. at 272 . In the alternative, it might compel us to remand to the IJ for a new determination as to whether the document it submitted for verification is, in fact, fraudulent. Zhen Nan Lin fux-ther recogxxized that, in violating section 208.6, “[t]he government through its negligence has potentially exposed [the petitioner] and his family to risks beyond those that ... caused [them] to flee.” Id. at 268 . We thex*efox'e remanded that case, ordering that, on x-e-mand, the BIA evaluate the arguable risk of persecution, independent of the original claim for asylum and withholding of removal, axdsing from the government’s violation of section 208.6. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when information contained in or pertaining to an asylum application ... is disclosed to a third party in violation of the regulations, and the unauthorized disclosure is of a nature to allow the third party to link the identity of the applicant to: (1) the fact that the applicant has applied for asylum; (2) specific facts or allegations pertaining to the individual asylum claim contained in an asylum application; or (3) facts or allegations that are sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that the applicant has applied for asylum.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anim v. Mukasey“the applicant does not raise the issue of knowledge.”
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.