Arrazabal v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.3d 961 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Yi-Tu Lian v. Ashcroft · Benitez Ramos v. Holder · Wanjiru v. Holder · Zeqiri v. Mukasey · Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch
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.
“If we accept that testimony as true (as the immigration judge implicitly did in this portion of his analysis), there is little more that Arrazabal could have done to distance himself from the gang without putting himself at even more risk of reprisal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arrazabal v. Barr“But that oft-repeated phrase must be understood pragmatically in the immigration context, because there is no reliable data to show just how great an applicant's risk of torture is.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arrazabal v. Barr“a substantial risk that a given alien will be tortured if removed from the United States”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arrazabal v. Barr
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.