Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 104 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Wang v. Holder.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wang v. Holder Anchor | green | “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” | 70 |
| 2 | Wang v. Holder | green | “an ij may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” | 19 |
| 3 | Efe v. Ashcroft | green | “withholding of removal is a higher standard than asylum,” | 7 |
| 4 | Shaikh v. Holder | green | “the bia's decision and only considers the ij's decision to the extent that it influenced the bia.” | 5 |
| 5 | Rui Yang v. Holder | green | “compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.