Gao v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
891 F.3d 67 · 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)) · 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 Paul v. Gonzales · Jenkins v. Anderson · Zhang v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Secaida-Rosales v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was not inconsistent with [his] initial accounts. The information was supplementary, not contradictory: that [his] beating[ ] warranted medical attention reinforces [his] claims of persecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gurung v. Barr“[a] trivial inconsistency ... that has no tendency to suggest a petitioner fabricated his or her claim will not support an adverse credibility determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gurung v. Barr“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. Gurung 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.