Krishnapillai v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
563 F.3d 606 · 2009
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably El-Moussa v. Holder (2009), Aden v. Holder (2009)
21 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. § 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft · Balogun v. Ashcroft · Estrada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Kadia 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency be tween the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The background evidence that Sundara-rajan has submitted, including in particular the December 2006 UNHCR report documenting the mistreatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka (and which recommends that no Tamil from the northern or east ern regions of the country be forced to return) gives us pause, as it did the IJ ... The lengthy armed conflict between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan armed forces has resulted in human rights abuses by both sides, and there is little reason to doubt that innocent Tamils have been arrested, imprisoned, and even tortured by the authorities. But our cases make clear that civil strife in a country that causes substantial hardships for an ethnic minority, some of whose members are engaged in an insurgency against the government, does not automatically render each non-combatant member of that minority a subject of persecution. See Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 736, 740-41 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Ratnasingam v. Holder, 556 F.3d 10, 14 (1st Cir.2009); Garcia v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 615, 618-19 (7th Cir. 2007); Rashiah v. Ashcroft, supra, 388 F.3d [1126] 1133 [(7th Cir.2004)]. Sun-dararajan has shown that many Tamils in Sri Lanka have suffered grave deprivations of their human rights, but the Board’s conclusion that this does not rise to the level of systemic persecution of Tamils based on their ethnicity was not unreasonable. The background evidence indicates that Tamils face an extremely difficult life in Sri Lanka, but it does not reflect the extreme degree of m”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 (b)(1). To be statutorily eligible for asylum, an alien must establish that he or she is a refugee — one who has suffered or will suffer persecution on one of these grounds. 4 . 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 (b)(2)(h) provides that "[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality ... if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 5 . The primary focus of Vakeesan's motion to reopen is her asylum claim, as opposed to her withholding of deportation claim. "To establish eligibility for nondiscretionary withholding of deportation, the alien must show that there is a 'clear probability' that her ‘life or freedom would be threatened in such country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’”
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.