Aden v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(ii) Sustaining burden The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Singh v. Holder · Ren v. Holder

2. “We have a line of circuit authority for the proposition that corroboration cannot be required from an applicant who testifies credibly. In Ladha v. INS , [ 215 F.3d 889 , 901 (9th Cir. 2000) ] we 'reaffirmed that an alien's testimony, if unrefuted and credible, direct and specific, is sufficient to establish the facts testified without the need for any corroboration.' Kataria v. INS [ 232 F.3d 1107 , 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) ] relied on Ladha in stating that 'the BIA may not require independent corroborative evidence from an asylum applicant who testifies credibly in support of his application.' Kataria stated that 'we must accept an applicant's testimony as true in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding.'... Congress abrogated these holdings in the REAL ID Act of 2005.... The statute additionally restricts the effect of apparently credible testimony by specifying that the IJ need not accept such testimony as true.... Congress has thus swept away our doctrine that 'when an alien credibly testifies to certain facts, those facts are deemed true.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ming Dai v. Barr