Ribas v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.3d 922 · 2008
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Khadka v. Holder (2010), Cheema v. Holder (2012)
15 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Oklahoma Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Shi Liang Lin v. United States Department of Justice · Biao Yang v. Gonzales · Sidabutar v. Gonzales
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen the meaning of the statute is clear, it is both unnecessary and improper to resort to legislative history to divine congressional intent.” Ribas v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 922 , 929 (10th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted); accord Iliev v. Holder, 613 F.3d 1019 , 1024 (10th Cir.2010) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“WARNING: Applicants who are in the United States illegally are subject to removal if their asylum or withholding claims are not granted by an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge. Any information provided in completing this application may be used as a basis for the institution of, or as evidence in, removal proceedings even if the application is later withdrawn. Applicants determined to have knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum will be permanently ineligible for any benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pavlov v. Holder“ascertain the congressional intent and give effect to the legislative will.”
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.