Perez v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.3d 331 · 2018
Citation profile
2 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))
Relies on Cole v. Holder · Pieschacon-Villegas v. Attorney General of United States · Sarhan v. Holder · N.L.A. v. Holder · 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An applicant for CAT protection must demonstrate that the torture was inflicted by or at the behest of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barry v. Barr“in the proposed country of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16 (c)(2)-(3), 1208.17(a). This court”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barry v. Barr“more likely than not that he or she would be tortured”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.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.