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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia who is a Christian and of Chinese descent, petitioned for review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA treated petitioner as credible, the court concluded that there was no basis to exclude from consideration petitioner's testimony that the staff of a public hospital deliberately delayed administering medical treatment to her three-month-old daughter on account of petitioner's race and religion. This evidence was directly relevant to whether petitioner suffered past persecution and may also be relevant to whether she had shown an individualized likelihood of future persecution. Accordingly, on remand, the BIA must reconsider petitioner's request for withholding of removal giving full weight to the evidence concerning the baby's death. The court addressed the remaining claims, granting the petition for review in part, denying it in part, dismissing it in part, and remanding for further proceedings. View "Sumolang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry under an agreement providing that the government could withdraw in the event that the presentence report reflected a prior conviction of a crime of violence. At issue was whether defendant's prior Arizona conviction for resisting arrest was a crime of violence that authorized a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for resisting arrest in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2508(A)(1) was not categorically a crime of violence within the meaning of federal law, and that the court's decision in Estrada-Rodriquez v. Mukasey, to the extent it suggested otherwise, was superseded by controlling, intervening authority. Under Descamps v. United States, remand for application of the modified categorical approach was not appropriate in this instance where Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2508(A)(1) was not a divisible statute with alternative elements. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Flores-Cordero" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for unlawfully attempting to procure citizenship and making false statements in a passport application. Defendant was sentenced to 51 months in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) followed by three years of supervised release. At issue was whether a term of supervised release was automatically tolled during a period of state custody without a judicial tolling order. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's supervised release where his period of state custody tolled his term of supervised release. Defendant's supervision was properly revoked since the district court issued a bench warrant within the period of the tolled supervised release term. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ahmadzai" on Justia Law

This dispute arose when plaintiffs sought payment from defendant for a loan plaintiffs provided to defendant's company. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file a nondischargeability complaint. Under existing case law, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred by sua sponte extending the time for plaintiffs to file a nondischargeability complaint after the deadline had already passed and by doing so without either a showing or a finding of cause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Willms v. Sanderson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that police officers used excessive force which resulted in her son's death. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The court held that the district court did not correctly conclude as a matter of law that the pre- and post-handcuffing conduct of defendants did not violate the son's constitutional rights and that no negligence occurred. The standard used by the district court was not correct where the district court judge's analysis was infected by impermissible credibility assessments. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The court declined to reassign the case where, despite the district court judge's error of law, the court had no reason to believe that the judge would be unable fairly and correctly to apply the Rule 50(a) standard on remand. View "Krechman v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

Fox filed suit against Dish Network for copyright infringement and breach of contract, seeking a preliminary injunction. At issue were two Dish products: (1) "PrimeTime Anytime," which allowed a cable subscriber to set a single timer to record any and all primetime programming on four major networks; and (2) "AutoHop," which allowed users to automatically skip commercials. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Fox did not establish a likelihood of success on its direct infringement claim. In this case, Dish's PrimeTime Anytime program created the copied program only in response to the user's command and the district court did not err in concluding that the user, not Dish, made the copy. Operating a system used to make copies at the user's command did not mean that the system operator, rather than the user, caused copies to be made. Although Fox established a prima facie case of direct infringement by Dish customers, Dish met its burden of demonstrating that it was likely to succeed on its affirmative defense that its customers' copying was a "fair use." Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Fox was unlikely to succeed on its claim of secondary infringement. Applying a very deferential standard of review, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction based on alleged contract breaches. Finally, even if Fox was likely to succeed on its claims that Dish directly infringed Fox's copyrights and breached the no-copying clause of the contract at issue by making "quality assurance" copies, the court agreed with the district court that Fox did not demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm resulting from these copies. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her employer discriminated against her based upon her sex. While pursuing the discrimination action, plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, failing to list the bankruptcy action in her bankruptcy schedules. The employer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in the discrimination action on the ground that judicial estoppel prohibited plaintiff from proceeding. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. However, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether plaintiff's bankruptcy omission was "mistaken" or "inadvertent." View "Quin v. County of Kauai Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a 37-year-old gay native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the BIA's order vacating an IJ's grant of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. The court concluded that the BIA failed to apply the clear standard of review to the IJ's factual findings, and also abused its discretion by ignoring factual findings of the IJ. The court granted the petition for review as to the application for withholding of removal where no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the harm petitioner suffered on account of his sexual orientation did not rise to the level of persecution in light of the cumulative effect of multiple instances of physical harm and victimization. The court, however, denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of CAT relief where it was unclear that petitioner's beatings and economic deprivation rose to the level of torture. View "Vitug v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the NMFS's limitations on commercial fishing in certain areas of the Pacific Ocean off Alaska. The agency limited commercial fishing in the areas where the western Distinct Population Segment of the Steller sea lions (wDPS) were experiencing population declines and showing signs of nutritional stress. The court held that the use of sub-regions, rather than in the entire population of the endangered species, did not violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531. Further, the agency utilized appropriate standards to find that continuing previous fishing levels in those sub-regions would adversely modify the critical habitat and jeopardize the continued existence of the entire population. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting plaintiffs' claims. View "State of Alaska v. Lubchenco" on Justia Law

After the court reversed and remanded for an award of social security disability benefits to plaintiff, plaintiff moved for an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying the fees where the government's underlying action was not substantially justified in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion and remanded for an award of fees and costs. View "Meier v. Colvin" on Justia Law