Witjaksono v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.3d 968 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Ritonga v. Holder (2011), Dallakoti v. Holder (2010)
5 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 Utah District Court)
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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. § 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 Prasad v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Hartooni v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Korablina v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Elzour v. Ashcroft · 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally speaking, an alien may not be removed to a particular country if he or she can establish a clear probability of persecution in that country on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Persecution is the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion, or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive, and requires more than just restrictions or threats to life and liberty. Such persecution may be inflicted by the government itself, or by a non-governmental group that the government is unwilling or unable to control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As in other contexts, the government’s failure to produce an adequate transcript does not necessarily rise to the level of a due process violation mandating reversal or remand. Rather, to demonstrate a denial of due process and obtain relief, an alien must show that the deficient transcript prejudiced [her] ability to perfect an appeal. That is, an alien must show that the gaps in the transcript relate to matters material to [her] case and that they materially affect [her] ability to obtain meaningful review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When an alien follows these procedures, the BIA is able to evaluate whether the “gaps [in the transcript] relate to matters material to [the] case and [whether] they materially affect [the alien’s] ability to obtain meaningful review.” Moreover, if the BIA concludes that a defective transcript did not cause prejudice, these procedures create a record that facilitates the meaningful and effective judicial review to which a petitioner is entitled.”
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.