Bernard v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
881 F.3d 1042 · 2018
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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 N-A-M · Rashiah v. Ashcroft · Bathula v. Holder · Garg v. Potter · 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a substantial risk that the petitioner will be targeted specifically .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“interpret[s] that standard liberally, requiring 'a substantial risk that a given alien will be tortured if removed from the United States.' " Bernard v. Sessions , 881 F.3d 1042 , 1047 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch , 808 F.3d 1134 , 1136 (7th Cir. 2015) ); see Perez v. Sessions , 889 F.3d 331 , 334 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that this court applies the "more likely than not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barry v. Barr“the immigration judge must address various factors such as evidence of past torture, ability to relocate within the country, evidence of grave human rights violations or other relevant country conditions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barry 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.