Stanciu v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.3d 203 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Loho v. Mukasey · Mariko v. Holder · Rasiah v. Holder · Kartasheva v. Holder · Burbiene 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“specific and cogent reasons why an inconsistency, or a series of inconsistencies, render the alien's testimony not credible”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dorce v. Garland
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.