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.
33 canonical passages across 25 cases, quoted by 2,775 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 Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias Anchor | red | “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” | 1,046 |
| 2 | Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias | red | “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” | 740 |
| 3 | Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias | red | “it can be reversed only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” | 250 |
| 4 | Djenaba Camara v. John Ashcroft, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States | green | “because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum - even though the facts that must be proved are the same - an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under 8 u.s.c. 1231(b)(3).” | 219 |
| 5 | Guennadi Y. Mikhailevitch v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty.” | 115 |
| 6 | Sekou Sylla v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “an adverse credibility finding must be based on issues that go to the heart of the applicant's claim.” | 63 |
| 7 | Elzbieta Klawitter v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “not only supports a contrary conclusion, but indeed compels it.” | 45 |
| 8 | Jan Kapcia v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Stanislaw Saulo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “to establish refugee status, the alien must prove either past 'persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” | 26 |
| 9 | Liri Norek Marku v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” | 24 |
| 10 | Shan Sheng Zhao v. Holder | green | “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” | 24 |
| 11 | Sekou Sylla v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “credibility determinations are considered findings of fact, and are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.” | 22 |
| 12 | Guennadi Y. Mikhailevitch v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” | 18 |
| 13 | Shan Sheng Zhao v. Holder | green | “when the bia adopts the ij's reasoning and supplements the ij's opinion, that opinion, as supplemented by the bia, becomes the basis for review.” | 18 |
| 14 | Mihaly Kotasz, Agnes Horvath Kotasz, Matyas Kotasz, and Erika Kotasz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “particularized threat of persecution” | 17 |
| 15 | Sekou Sylla v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “while an adverse credibility finding is afforded substantial deference, the finding must be supported by specific reasons.” | 17 |
| 16 | Svitlana Denko v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “when the board adopts the decision of the ij in lieu of issuing its own opinion, we review the ij's decision as the final agency decision.” | 15 |
| 17 | Masood Shirazi-Parsa Georgina Shirazi-Parsa v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | red | “requires a showing by credible, direct, and specific evidence of facts supporting a reasonable fear of persecution on the relevant ground.” | 13 |
| 18 | Ceraj v. Mukasey | green | “because the bia adopted the ij's decision with additional commentary, we review the decision of the ij, as supplemented by the bia, as the final administrative order.” | 13 |
| 19 | Acewicz v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “an applicant's credible testimony that he genuinely fears persecution.” | 13 |
| 20 | Sahar Ouda v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “the asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that he or she qualifies as a refugee 'either because he or she has suffered past persecution or because he or she has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” | 9 |
| 21 | Saeed Rezai v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “establish that he is a refugee by proving either past persecution or a 'well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” | 7 |
| 22 | Rolando Augustine Castellano-Chacon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service | red | “barred from reviewing the bia's decision denying castellano's application on the basis that it was untimely and must therefore affirm the bia's decision on this point” | 7 |
| 23 | Faustino Santana-Albarran v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General | green | “specifically divests jurisdiction of a court to review judgments regarding the granting of discretionary relief, including the cancellation of removal” | 7 |
| 24 | Jan Kapcia v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Stanislaw Saulo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service | green | “a grant of asylum requires two steps.” | 6 |
| 25 | Mohamed Ramiz Ali v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General Immigration and Naturalization Service | green | “must show a 'clear probability of persecution,' which is a stricter standard than the 'well-founded fear' standard that applies with respect to applications for asylum.” | 6 |
| 26 | Luce Gilaj and Luigj Gilaj v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General | green | “the conduct on which the application for asylum is based must go beyond what might reasonably be characterized as mere harassment.” | 6 |
| 27 | Duan Ying Chen (04-3730) Jin He Lin (04-3731) v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States | green | “even so, the immigration judge's conclusion must be supported by specific reasons and must be based upon issues that go to the heart of the applicant's claim.” | 5 |
| 28 | Kaba v. Mukasey | green | “rather, to overturn such a factual determination, 'we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” | 5 |
| 29 | Mohammed v. Keisler | green | “persecution must rise above the level of harassment or discrimination without physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty.” | 5 |
| 30 | Jihan Hatem Almuhtaseb v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General | red | “lesser forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” | 4 |
| 31 | Kaba v. Mukasey | green | “under this deferential standard, we may not reverse the boards's or the immigration judge's determination simply because we would have decided the matter differently.” | 4 |
| 32 | Aneta Lumaj v. Alberto R. Gonzales | green | “was not detained, imprisoned, tortured, or sexually assaulted in any way.” | 3 |
| 33 | Gjokic v. Ashcroft | green | “while even a single beating offends one's sense of civilized governmental conduct, a single beating does not compel a finding of persecution.” | 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.