Singh v. Moschorak’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 1031 · 1995
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Melkonian v. Ashcroft (2003), Mazariegos v. Office of the U.S. Attorney General (2001)
26 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. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corp. v. J.L.M. Construction Co. · Diaz-escobar v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Castillo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Desir v. Ilchert
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t has never been thought that there are safe places within a nation when it is the nation's government that has engaged in the acts of punishing opinion that have driven the victim to leave the country.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he district court remanded to the [BIA] to determine if Singh can 'live safely in another region of India' distinct from his home. The district court apparently believed that Singh would not qualify for asylum if his persecution by India for political opinion was confined to the Punjab. Such is not the law ... We have recognized that where there was a danger of persecution in a single village from guerillas who knew the petitioner, and no showing of such danger elsewhere in the country, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum. The [INS] argues by analogy that these cases control this case. But where the persecution is by the government of the nation no such distinction may be taken ... It has never been thought that there are safe places within a nation when it is the nation's government that has engaged in the acts of punishing opinion that have driven the victim to leave the country.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The term 'refugee' means [ ] any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
2 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.