Bonilla-Morales v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 1132 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
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))
Relies on Mikhailevitch v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Guang Run Yu v. Ashcroft · Castellano-Chacon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · S-E-G · Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mandebvu v. Holder“Persecution is defined as “the infliction of harm or suffering by the government, or persons the government is unwilling or unable to control, to overcome a characteristic of the victim,” Bonillcv-Mor-ales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir.2010) (citation omitted), and “requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty.” Mikhailev-iteh v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275, 285 (6th Cir.2005).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the proposed group can accurately be described in a manner sufficiently distinct that the group would be recognized, in the society in question, as a discrete class of persons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leon v. Barr
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.