Case Citator › Ramadan v. Gonzales

Ramadan v. Gonzales

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
479 F.3d 646
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
41 of 41
Citing cases (total)
41
Treatment dates
2011
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. The Sixth Circuit declined to follow Ramadan v. Gonzales in 2011, but the conflict later narrowed. It then refused to adopt Ramadan's rule allowing review of how an agency applied law to undisputed facts in a late asylum application.
More on how this was screened

In 2020, the Sixth Circuit recognized that a Supreme Court ruling displaced its earlier narrow interpretation and allowed such review. All 41 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed historical refusal is listed below.

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.

41 later cases cite Ramadan v. Gonzales; 41 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 Ramadan v. Gonzales?

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

  • Refused to adopt Ramadan's broader reading of the REAL ID Act and retained the Sixth Circuit's narrower rule for reviewing late asylum applications.

    Khozhaynova v. Holder · Sixth Circuit · filed

    To support this assertion, Khozhaynova relies upon Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Ramadan II”). ... 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. ... 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 Ramadan v. Gonzales 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