Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for review of a determination by the USCIS that his felony conviction of assault with intent to commit rape rendered him ineligible to become naturalized as a United States citizen. The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the USCIS as a matter of law was justified. Contrary to petitioner's claims, he had not been deprived of due process of law or been the victim of the improper retroactive application of a statute. Although he was barred from naturalization as a citizen, his status as a legal permanent resident remained in full force. View "Alocozy v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841. At issue was whether the district court erred by sentencing defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 based on his two prior convictions under California Health and Safety Code 11352(a). The court held that the government had not satisfied its burden of showing that one of these two convictions qualified as a predicate offense and remanded for the district court to reconsider defendant's offender status. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for voluntary departure. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by considering facts which, in a criminal case, might be evidence of a crime. He contended that in doing so, the IJ was using a crime as evidence against him even though he had not then been convicted of the crime alleged against him. The evidence of petitioner's sexual conduct with a minor was probative as to his bad character and undesirability for permanent residency, and it was therefore properly considered by the IJ. Although petitioner had not been convicted of a crime for the activity, he admitted the underlying facts before the IJ. Further, the IJ's discretionary consideration of that admission did not violate petitioner's due process rights by denying him a presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the court held that the IJ committed no error and denied the petition. View "Rojas v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1995. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in California challenging a state court's denial of his request to obtain additional DNA testing pursuant to a state statute. Plaintiff alleged that he was the target of a conspiracy involving members of the county sheriff's department and others. The district court dismissed on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under that doctrine, the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his first claim, which sought federal relief from the state court's determination in the DNA proceeding, and over his second and third claims, which were inextricably intertwined with the first. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that his complaint was properly dismissed. The court also held that the district court did not err in implicitly denying plaintiff's request to amend his complaint. View "Cooper v. Ramos, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a final order of removal issued by the BIA, adopting and approving the IJ's finding that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). The court concluded that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by admitting Form I-213 and her admitted actions were more than mere reluctant acquiescence in the plan of another, but were instead affirmative acts in violation of section 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). Because the IJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, the court denied the petition for review. View "Sanchez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an undocumented Mexican national, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's claim that her due process rights were violated by the fact that her husband was granted cancellation of removal four years earlier based on similar facts. The court vacated and remanded, however, on petitioner's claim that the BIA erred as a matter of law when it held that an applicant for cancellation of removal's ability to demonstrate hardship to his qualifying relatives was necessarily undercut by the possibility that the applicant could have alternative means to immigrate at some undefined point in the future. View "Arteaga-De Alvarez, et al v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) properly upheld two air permits authorizing exploratory drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean by a drillship and its associated fleet of support vessels. The petition for review challenged two aspects of the permits: (1) the determination that supported vessels, unlike the drillship itself, did not require the best available control technology (BACT) to control emissions; and (2) the exemption of the area within a 500-meter radius of the drillship from ambient air quality standards. The court denied the petition, holding that the EPA's interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 7627 was reasonable and that the EPA's grant of a 500 meter ambient air exemption was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the agency's regulations. View "REDOIL, et al v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CEO of MOD, appealed from his conviction on four counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and two counts of money laundering. The court held that defendant's mail fraud conviction must be reversed where the success of defendant's fraudulent scheme did not depend in any way on the use of the mails; convictions on Counts 6 and 7, money laundering, were affirmed where the convictions did not raise a Santos merger problem, and thus proceeds should be defined as "gross receipts" for the purposes of defendant's crime; defendant's claim that there was error in the jury instructions failed because proceeds did not mean profits in this case; the prosecutor's comments during closing were proper; and defendant failed to show that the district court committed plain error in imposing a standard condition of supervised release. As for the Government's cross-appeal regarding forfeiture, the court remanded to determine the amount that defendant derived from the wire frauds charged in Counts 1, 2, and 3, and to enter a forfeiture judgment against defendant in that amount. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Wells Fargo under California state law for engaging in unfair business practices by imposing overdraft fees based on a high-to-low posting order and for engaging in fraudulent practices by misleading clients as to the actual posting order used by the bank. The district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and Wells Fargo subsequently appealed, raising issues of federal preemption. The court concluded that federal law preempted state regulation of the posting order as well as any obligation to make specific, affirmative, disclosures to bank customers. The court held, however, that Federal law did not preempt California consumer law with respect to fraudulent or misleading representations concerning posting. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gutierrez, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

National Elevator, lead plaintiff on behalf of investors who purchased VeriFone stock, appealed the dismissal of its securities fraud class action. National Elevator alleged that VeriFone, the CEO and former Chairman of the Board of Directors, and the company's former CFO and Executive Vice President, violated sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t-1(a), and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10-b, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5(b), in connection with a December 2007 restatement of financial results. The court held that National Elevator adequately pleaded violations of section 10B and Rule 10b as to all defendants; its section 20A claim against the individual defendants was sufficiently pled; but the section 20(a) claim was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "National Elevator Industry Pension Fund v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al" on Justia Law