Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 659 F.3d 762 - Cole v. Holder

Cole v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

659 F.3d 762 · 2011

Citation profile

140
cited by 140 later decisions
February 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 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 Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Zehatye v. Gonzales · Prasad v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Navaratwam Kamalthas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

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

  1. “[W]here there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, a catchall phrase does not suffice, and the decision cannot stand. Such indications include misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(i) Evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant; (ii) Evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured; (iii) Evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, where applicable; and (iv) Other relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “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.”
    3 later decisions 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.