Yiu Sing Chun v. Sava’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 869 · 1983
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Jean v. Nelson (1985), Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008)
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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.
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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1323 (§ 273 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · Morton v. Mancari · Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin · Houltin v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“interest in not being returned may well enjoy some due process protection”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jean v. Nelson · Augustin v. Sava“8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(a). Whatever procedural limitations Sec. 1323(d) might impose in the absence of Sec. 1158, we hold that these limitations are not applicable in the asylum context to the extent and only to the extent that an asylum determination is involved. 19 Id. at 874-75 (emphasis in original). Third, we were unconvinced by the agency's policy arguments in support of its position. Id. at 875-76. Finally, we saw constitutional support for our construction, noting that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A]n alien physically present in the United States or at a land border or port of entry, irrespective of such alien’s status, [may] apply for asylum and ... may be granted asylum ... if the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.””
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.