Ashok Chand Premila Mudaliar Chand v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that where “many members of [a protected] group are targeted for persecution, less of an individualized showing is required to qualify for asylum, not more” (emphasis in original)
• noting that where “many members of [a protected] group are targeted for persecution, less of an individualized showing is required to qualify for asylum, not more” (emphasis in original)
• noting that if the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions
• holding “persistent robbery under threatening conditions” is persecution where there was evidence that the government “was unable or unwilling to control such crime”
• acknowledging that the State Department reports may not contain all the information relevant to an asylum applicant’s claim
• stating that “[p]hysical harm has consis tently been treated as persecution,” and holding that the cumulative impact of harm, including economic injury, compelled a finding of past persecution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).