El-Moussa v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.3d 250 · 2009
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Bennett v. MIS Corp. (2010), Hachem v. Holder (2011)
14 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. § 1229A (§ 240 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 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey · Guang Run Yu v. Ashcroft · McPherson v. Kelsey · Wang v. Holder · Almuhtaseb 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between 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.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hachem v. Holder · Gaye v. Lynch“failed to seal off the [work] area[,]” and, in general, did not "perform[ ][the] [tasks] [] required by the [FAA's] Statement of Work.” 4 . We granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Applied Environmental, Inc. as a party to this appeal on March 4, 2009. 5 . Plaintiffs’ complaint also alleged that MIS, TE/OC, Clayton, and Safe engaged in intentional, reckless, and outrageous conduct, but plaintiffs failed to address the district court’s dismissal of this claim and have therefore forfeited it on appeal. "Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bennett v. MIS Corp.
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.