Castillo-Diaz v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 23 · 2009
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions (2017), Decky v. Holder (2009)
20 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. § 1159 (§ 209 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. § 1231 (§ 241 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 Marta Brigida Melgar De Torres Janet Reno and the Immigration and Naturalization Service · Aguilar-Solis v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Albathani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Nikijuluw v. Gonzales · El Moraghy v. Ashcroft
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“under the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard, reversing only if a 'reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n evaluating whether the applicant has sustained the burden of proving that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, the ... [IJ] shall not require the applicant to provide evidence that there is a reasonable possibility he or she would be singled out individually for persecution if ... [t]he applicant establishes that there is a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality ... of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and ... the applicant establishes his or her own inclusion in, and identification with, such group of persons such that his or her fear of persecution upon return is reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sugiarto 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.