Njong v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis
911 F.3d 919 · 2018
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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))
Relies on CHEN · Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales · Eusebio v. Ashcroft · Guled v. Mukasey · Khrystotodorov 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we must affirm the BIA's factual decisions unless, after having reviewed the record as a whole, we determine that it would not be possible for a reasonable fact-finder to adopt the BIA's position.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“deferential 'substantial evidence' standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]ecause the BIA did not consider the IJ's credibility findings, that issue is not properly before us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.