Case Citator › Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice

Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
471 F.3d 315
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
114 of 114
Citing cases (total)
2,764
Treatment dates
2011
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Declined to follow. All 114 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The one confirmed treatment is listed below: Valentia Khozhaynova v. Eric Holder, Jr. retained the Sixth Circuit's narrower jurisdictional rule and declined to adopt Xiao Ji Chen's broader reading of the REAL ID Act. No stronger adverse treatment was found.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,764 later cases cite Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice; 114 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to Follow

  • The Sixth Circuit declined to adopt Xiao Ji Chen's holding that the REAL ID Act permits review of mixed questions involving the application of law to undisputed facts, instead retaining its narrower rule limiting review to constitutional or statutory-interpretation claims.

    Valentia Khozhaynova v. Eric Holder, Jr. · Sixth Circuit · filed

    She argues that the Ninth and Second Circuits were correct in reconsidering their interpretation of Amendment 106, and that we should adopt their revised holdings. Khozhaynova points to no intervening Supreme Court case clarifying what effect Amendment 106 should have, nor is this panel aware of one. Therefore, because “[i]t is a well-established rule of this circuit that one panel cannot overrule the holding of another panel, absent an intervening inconsistent opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court,” we decline to reconsider our initial statutory interpretation of Amendment 106. . . . We continue to maintain a more narrow interpretation of our jurisdiction to review untimely asylum applications, and limit review to constitutional or statutory interpretation claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace