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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") May 2005 order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal and its March 2006 order denying his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). At issue was whether the BIA properly denied petitioner asylum and withholding of removal, whether the BIA properly denied petitioner's claim for protection under the CAT, and whether petitioner's due process rights were violated. The court held that the BIA properly concluded that petitioner's drug-trafficking offense rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that probable cause was lacking. The court also held that the BIA properly denied petitioner protection under the CAT where substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that he was not likely to be tortured upon return to the Philippines. The court further held that there was nothing in the record compelling the conclusion that certain witness testimony somehow precluded petitioner from presenting his claims for relief.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") retermitting his application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to the now-repealed section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). At issue was whether petitioner was eligible for 212(c) relief and whether petitioner was eligible for discretionary relief under INS v. St. Cyr. The court held that res judicata bound the BIA to the final decision of the district court which held that petitioner was eligible for discretionary relief under section 212(c) based on St. Cyr.

Intervenor State of Alaska appealed the district court's judgment in favor of Southeast Alaska Conservatory Council and five other groups (collectively, "SEACC") in their suit against the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") and other defendants arising from the initiation of the Juneau Access Improvements Project ("Project") to improve surface access between Juneau and the communities of Haines and Skagway in the Lynn Canal corridor of Southeast Alaska. At issue was whether the district court properly ordered the State to consider improving existing ferry service between Juneau and the communities of Haines and Skagway before proceeding with expensive construction of a new ferry terminal and highway through a national forest. The court held that the district court properly concluded that it was arbitrary for the FHWA to refuse to consider reassigning vessels as a project alternative on the basis that it would increase costs and reduce services elswhere when the chosen project alternative could have been rejected for the same reason. By failing to examine a viable and reasonable alternative to the proposed project, and by not providing an adequate justification for its omission, the Environmental Impact Statement issued by the FHWA violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a).

Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging copyright infringement, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and several other causes of actions where defendants produced a television series on the Sci-Fi Channel based on plaintiffs' materials. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's contractual claims on the basis that the claims were preempted by copyright law. The court reversed and held that copyright law did not preempt a breach of implied contract claim where plaintiffs alleged a bilateral expectation that they would be compensated for use of the idea, the essential element of a Desny v. Wilder claim that separated it from preempted claims for the use of copyrighted material. The court also held that the breach of confidence claim was not preempted by copyright law where the claim protected the duty of trust or confidential relationship between the parties, an extra element that made it qualitatively different from a copyright claim. The court also held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to make out a claim for breach of implied contract and breach of confidence.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after plaintiff was arrested for, among other things, possession of false identification documents, when he reported to an agent with the Enforcement Division of the Nevada Gaming Control Board ("NGCB") that MGM management had unlawfully denied him payment of his tickets at their casinos. The agent arrested plaintiff after casino records indicated that he had previously redeemed tickets under two different names and the charges against plaintiff were later dismissed. At issue was whether plaintiff's false arrest/false imprisonment, battery, and premises liability claims were properly dismissed under Nevada law and whether plaintiff's false arrest and conspiracy to commit false arrest claims were properly dismissed under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where plaintiff admitted to the agent that he possessed and used an unofficial identification card and credit card with a different name to gamble at several Las Vegas casinos; where plaintiff's admissions provided the agent with probable cause to believe he had committed a crime and therefore permitting the agent to arrest him; and where, as a result, plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state plausible claims for false arrest, conspiracy to commit false arrest, false imprisonment, and premises liability under state and federal law.

Defendant, a seventeen-year old high school student, appealed his convictions on felony murder after the murder of nine individuals, including six monks, at a Buddhist temple. Although defendant eventually confessed to participating in the nine murders, he challenged his confession, asserting that the Miranda advisements he was given were inadequate and that his confession was involuntary. The court held that the advisement provided to defendant, which consumed twelve pages of transcript and completely obfuscated the core precepts of Miranda, was inadequate. The court also held that that nearly thirteen hours of relentless overnight questioning of a sleep-deprived teenager by a tag team of officers overbore the will of that teen, rendering his confession involuntary. The court further concluded that the state court rulings to the contrary were an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of governing Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, having reviewed the facts and circumstances of the case in light of Florida v. Powell, the court reaffirmed its prior rulings.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that defendant negligently allowed an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist in its store after she fell over an end cap and injured herself. The district court prohibited plaintiff's medical experts from testifying about causation in her case-in-chief due to her failure to comply with expert disclosure rules. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant breached its duty to her and that plaintiff's injuries were caused by her fall. Also at issue was whether the district court properly precluded nonmedical expert testimony. The court reversed summary judgment on the breach of duty ruling and held that there were genuine issues of material facts as to whether the end cap was an open and obvious condition and, even assuming obviousness, whether defendant should have anticipated the danger nevertheless. The court also held that when a treating physician morphs into a witness hired to render expert opinions that go beyond the usual scope of a treating doctor's testimony, the proponent of the testimony must comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 26(a)(2). Therefore, the court reversed summary judgment on the causation ruling and held as a matter of discretion that plaintiff should be allowed to rectify her error by disclosing reports for her treating physicians. The court further held that, because plaintiff's failure to disclose her nonmedical experts' reports in a timely manner was neither substantially justified nor harmless, the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding those experts from testifying in plaintiff's case-in-chief.

Plaintiffs, working as auditors in The Boeing Company's ("Boeing") IT Sarbanes-Oxley ("SOX") Audit group, filed SOX whistleblower complaints under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, U.S.C. 1514(a)(1), with the Occupation Safety and Health Administration after they were terminated by Boeing when they spoke with a reporter from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ("Post-Intelligencer") about Boeing's compliance with SOX. At issue was whether plaintiffs' disclosures to the Post-Intelligencer were protected under section 1514(a)(1), which protected employees of publicly-traded companies who disclose certain types of information. The court held that section 1514(a)(1) did not protect employees of publicly-held companies from retaliation when they disclosed information regarding designated types of fraud or securities violations to members of the media.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, appealed from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his claims for asylum where petitioner had allegedly lied about previously applying for asylum in Canada. At issue was whether the IJ's adverse creditability finding was not supported by substantial evidence in the record and that petitioner was denied due process of law by the denial of continuance so that he could put his father on the stand. The court held that substantial evidence on the record supported the adverse creditability decision, the need for corroboration, and the conclusion that petitioner had not borne his burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum. The court also held that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying another continuance where the IJ was not required to grant a motion for continuance based upon speculations.

Petitioner, a native of China, appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claims based upon an adverse credibility determination, as well as the IJ's decision that petitioner filed a frivolous asylum application. At issue was the distinction between an applicant for asylum whose testimony lacked creditability and one who had deliberately fabricated material aspects of her application. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of petitioner's asylum and withholding of removal claims based on petitioner's lack of creditability. The court also held that the issue of whether petitioner submitted a frivolous asylum application was a distinct question requiring a separate analysis and that, although the grounds cited for the adverse creditability determination overlapped to some extent with the grounds cited for the frivolous findings, the heightened requirements of the latter finding were not met.