claim without addressing whether the applicant had a protected interest in receiving asylum. See, e.g., Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir.2010); Banatv. Holder, 557 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir.2009); Ismail v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 970, 974-75 (8th Cir.2005). To the extent these decisions conflict with Obleshchenko by implicitly finding a protected interest, we nevertheless follow the rule announced in Obleshchenko — that an alien does not have a liberty or property interest in receiving asylum — because it is our earliest case to reach the issue, Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir.2011), and because the cases that imply a protected interest did not squarely address the issue, see Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630-31, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)
recognizing that the doctrine of stare decisis embodies the obligation to follow precedent holding that decision by panel of this court is established precedent under rules of stare decisis holding that the doctrine of stare decisis applies to the issue of reliability of new scientific techniques the intoxilyzer in that case holding that stare decisis does not apply unless the question at issue was squarely addressed in prior decisions holding that the doctrine of stare decisis is most frequently applied in cases affecting real property