Lai v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
773 F.3d 966 · 2014
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Shrestha v. Holder · Alvarez-Santos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Lopez-Reyes v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Andaranik Bandari v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Husyev v. Mukasey
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In so doing, we review here the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ's oral decision in support of those reasons.... Stated differently, we do not review those parts of the IJ's ... finding that the BIA did not identify as 'most significant' and did not otherwise mention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ming Dai v. Sessions“This is not a case where contradictory or even impeaching information came out; rather, it was information consistent with [the applicant's] own claimed experiences that would have helped his claim had he brought it out himself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gao v. Sessions“omissions are less probative of credibility than inconsistencies created by direct contradictions in evidence and testimony,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gao 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.