Weng v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 510 · 2009
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,072 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Huang v. Holder (2012), Mei Fun Wong v. Holder (2011)
12 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. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Yan Chen v. Gonzales · Fedorenko v. United States · Bah v. Mukasey · Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice · Negusie v. Holder
Cited together with Paul v. Gonzales · Yan Chen v. Gonzales · Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey · Majidi v. Gonzales · Xiao Ji Chen 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 1,072 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we will not disturb a factual finding if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record when considered as a whole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wei Sun 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.