David Daada Gonahasa v. U.S. Immigration & 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 State Department reports are the best resource for gleaning information on the political situations in foreign nations
• explaining that it is well established that “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “It is true that State Department reports may be flawed and that private groups or news organizations often voice conflicting views.”
• “[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• \[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.\ (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Eligibility for asylum based on severity of persecution alone is reserved for the most atrocious abuse.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).