Sharma v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.3d 407 · 2013
Citation profile
5 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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 · Soadjede v. Ashcroft · Mikhael v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft · Omari 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]lthough a statutorily protected ground need not be the only reason for harm, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cabrera v. Sessions“[w]hile it was reasonable for the BIA in this case to find that the Maoists were motivated, at least in part, by [the petitioner's] refusal to cooperate with them,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Revencu v. Sessions“he was subjected to torture and a longer detention than [the other students he was with] because of his political opposition to the Maoists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Revencu v. Sessions
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.