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

Christian Ruiz, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, experienced significant trauma during his childhood due to persecution by the Sandinista government, including the murder of his father, threats to his family, and repeated harassment. After living in Nicaragua and Guatemala for several years, Ruiz moved to the United States in 2006. He applied for asylum more than a year after his arrival, citing the lasting effects of his childhood trauma, and also sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ruiz later married a U.S. citizen and requested administrative closure of his removal proceedings to pursue adjustment of status, but his immigration history included multiple DUI convictions.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all forms of relief, finding Ruiz’s trauma did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” excusing the untimeliness of his asylum application, and concluded that neither his past experiences nor current conditions in Nicaragua supported claims for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ also denied administrative closure, citing Ruiz’s criminal and immigration history. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed these decisions, agreeing that Ruiz had not shown how his trauma prevented timely asylum filing, that country conditions in Nicaragua had changed, and that administrative closure was unwarranted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case, addressing its jurisdiction under recent Supreme Court precedent. The court held it had jurisdiction to review the “extraordinary circumstances” determination as a mixed question of law and fact, subject to deference. On the merits, the Ninth Circuit found no error in the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding, CAT relief, or administrative closure, and denied Ruiz’s petition for review. View "RUIZ V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Punjab, India, who practices the Sikh faith and is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann) political party, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after entering the United States. He claimed to have suffered harm from rival political groups, specifically citing three incidents: a verbal threat to leave the Mann party, two brief physical assaults requiring minor medical treatment, and one night of detention by local police after the second assault. After the first assault, he relocated to live with his in-laws about 35 to 40 kilometers away, where he had no further problems for six months.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner credible but concluded that the incidents did not amount to past persecution and determined he could reasonably relocate within India to avoid future harm. The Immigration Judge denied all forms of relief and ordered removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that the cumulative harm did not rise to the level of persecution and that the petitioner could avoid future persecution by relocating internally, given his prior successful relocation and evidence that low-level Mann party members faced no legal obstacles to relocation. The BIA also denied protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding the petitioner failed to meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge’s conclusions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence. The court held that the alleged harms, viewed individually or cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past persecution and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner could reasonably avoid future persecution by relocating within India. The court denied the petition for review. View "SINGH V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident of the United States, who is a Canadian citizen, pleaded guilty in 2003 to one count of health care fraud after participating in a scheme involving fraudulent prescriptions and false Medicaid/Medi-Cal billing. The conviction, which involved a loss exceeding $10,000, rendered him removable from the United States. He claimed that his attorneys gave him incorrect or incomplete advice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea. Despite being informed by both the sentencing judge in 2003 and a U.S. immigration official in 2007 that his conviction could lead to removal, he did not seek to vacate his conviction until many years later.After removal proceedings began in 2008, the defendant waited until 2016 to file his first petition for a writ of coram nobis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition due to unreasonable delay, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that denial in 2020, finding the delay between 2014 and 2016 unjustified. The first petition focused on the conduct of the attorney who represented him at sentencing.In 2021, the defendant filed a second coram nobis petition in the same district court, this time alleging ineffective assistance by three different attorneys, including the one who handled his first petition. The district court denied the second petition, finding it barred by laches due to prejudicial delay, as key witnesses had died and evidence had been lost. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the government was prejudiced by the delay and that the defendant failed to show reasonable diligence in seeking relief, given that he was on notice of the immigration consequences years earlier. View "USA V. KROYTOR" on Justia Law

A Nigerian citizen sought relief from removal in the United States, claiming he faced persecution in Nigeria due to his ethnicity and membership in a separatist political organization. He described several violent incidents involving Nigerian police, including arrests, assaults, and threats to his life. After leaving Nigeria, he entered the United States on a visitor visa and subsequently married a U.S. citizen, later applying for adjustment of status based on that marriage. However, both he and his spouse admitted to immigration authorities that the marriage was fraudulent and entered into for immigration purposes, with the petitioner paying his spouse for the arrangement.The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his adjustment application and a subsequent petition under the Violence Against Women Act, finding insufficient evidence of a bona fide marriage. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him with overstaying his visa and committing marriage fraud. During removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge, the petitioner denied the marriage was fraudulent and claimed his prior admission was coerced. The Immigration Judge found him not credible, primarily due to the marriage fraud and his inconsistent statements, and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the adverse credibility finding and denial of relief, remanding only for further analysis of his fear of future persecution, which was again rejected after additional evidence was submitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied the petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination based on the petitioner’s deliberate deception of immigration authorities, even though the fraud was not directly related to his persecution claim. The court clarified that such intentional deception can, by itself, support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances, and the record did not compel a contrary conclusion. The denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and the motion to remand was affirmed. View "ANI V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen of Mayan descent sought relief from removal to Mexico, claiming that his indigenous heritage, visible gang-related tattoos, history of multiple deportations, mental illnesses, and substance-abuse disorder placed him at high risk of persecution and torture by Mexican police or criminal organizations. He described three attacks in Mexico: one by police, one by a vigilante group, and one by masked gang or cartel members. He also submitted expert testimony and extensive documentary evidence about widespread human rights abuses in Mexico, particularly against individuals with characteristics similar to his.After the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior removal order, he applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied both forms of relief, finding him not credible based on his denial of gang membership, his demeanor, and the omission of a sensitive injury from his application. The IJ also found that his country-conditions evidence did not independently establish a likelihood of torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s findings and denied relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petition for review as to withholding of removal, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency’s adverse credibility determination, particularly regarding the implausibility of the petitioner’s denial of gang membership and his demeanor. However, the court found that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to substantial expert and country-conditions evidence relevant to the CAT claim. The court therefore granted the petition in part, remanding the CAT claim for further consideration in light of all relevant evidence, and denied the petition in part as to withholding of removal. View "Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals living in the United States received Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allowed them to work and protected them from deportation due to ongoing humanitarian crises in Venezuela. In January 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security extended TPS for Venezuelans through October 2026, consolidating two prior designations to streamline the process. Shortly after, a new Secretary, following a change in administration, attempted to vacate this extension and terminate TPS for one group of Venezuelan nationals, citing confusion and alleged improvements in Venezuela’s conditions. This abrupt reversal threatened TPS holders with imminent loss of status, employment, and the risk of deportation.The National TPS Alliance and several individual TPS holders filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to restore the extension. The district court granted preliminary relief, postponing the effective dates of the vacatur and termination notices nationwide under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored postponement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the preliminary relief and that neither the TPS statute nor 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred judicial review of the Secretary’s authority. The court concluded that the Secretary lacked statutory authority to vacate a prior extension of TPS, as the statute provides specific procedures for designation, extension, and termination, but not for vacatur. The court also found that nationwide relief was necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. The district court’s order postponing the vacatur and termination of Venezuelan TPS was affirmed. View "National TPS Alliance v. Noem" on Justia Law

A Cuban national fled his home country after enduring years of persecution and briefly stayed in Mexico, where he also faced threats and extortion. Upon entering the United States, he sought asylum, describing his fears of returning to both Cuba and Mexico. An Immigration Judge granted him withholding of removal to Cuba, but did not designate Mexico or any other country as an alternative for removal. Neither party appealed this decision, making it final. Despite this, federal immigration officials removed him to Mexico, where he was threatened by gang members. He returned to the United States two days later, was detained, and was ultimately granted asylum.After these events, the individual filed a lawsuit for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that his removal to Mexico was improper and caused him harm. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g), which restrict judicial review of certain immigration actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not bar the lawsuit because the plaintiff’s claims challenged the legal authority and process of his removal to Mexico, not the discretionary decision to execute a removal order. The court found that the claims were based on actions taken after the conclusion of removal proceedings and were not subject to the exclusive petition-for-review process. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Federal Tort Claims Act suit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "IBARRA-PEREZ V. USA" on Justia Law

A man born in New York City in July 1950 lived for nearly seventy years in the United States, believing himself to be a U.S. citizen. His father, a Nicaraguan national, was working for Nicaragua’s permanent mission to the United Nations at the time of his birth. Over the years, the government repeatedly issued him passports and affirmed his citizenship. However, in 2018, after a review of historical records, the government determined that his father had been an attaché, not a consul, at the time of his birth. This distinction was crucial because, under federal and international law, the children of diplomats (such as attachés) are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for purposes of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed the case after the government revoked the man’s passport and denied his claim to citizenship. The Secretary of State presented a recently executed certificate asserting that the man’s father had diplomatic immunity at the time of his birth. The district court declined to treat this certificate as conclusive evidence but, after considering the full record, found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was an attaché with diplomatic immunity, and thus the plaintiff was not a birthright citizen.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that while the President’s reception of a person as a diplomat is conclusive, whether that reception occurred is a factual question for the courts to decide, even when presented with a certificate from the executive branch. The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination that the plaintiff’s father held diplomatic immunity at the time of birth, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to birthright citizenship. View "MONCADA V. RUBIO" on Justia Law

A private company operating a federal immigration detention facility in Washington State challenged the enforcement of several provisions of a state law that imposed health, safety, and inspection requirements on private detention centers. The law required the state Department of Health to adopt rules ensuring sanitary and safe conditions, authorized unannounced inspections, provided for civil penalties for violations, and created a private right of action for detainees. The company argued that these provisions violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and were preempted by federal law, claiming they improperly targeted federal contractors and conflicted with federal standards.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the challenged sections of the law violated intergovernmental immunity by discriminating against the federal government and its contractor. The court compared the requirements imposed on the federal facility to those imposed on state prisons and concluded that the law treated the federal contractor less favorably. The state appealed, and while the appeal was pending, the Washington legislature amended the law, but the changes did not materially alter the issues on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the appropriate comparison for determining discrimination under intergovernmental immunity is between the federal immigration facility and other civil detention facilities in the state, not state prisons. The court directed the district court to make this comparison in the first instance. The Ninth Circuit also held that the challenged provisions were not preempted by federal law and that the district court erred in enjoining the private right of action, as the state officials named as defendants had no enforcement authority under that provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "THE GEO GROUP, INC. V. INSLEE" on Justia Law

The case involves several states and individual plaintiffs challenging an executive order issued by President Trump, which denies citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present. The district court issued a universal preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the executive order. The defendants appealed, arguing that the states lack standing, the preliminary injunction was improperly issued, and its scope was too broad.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, concluding that the states had standing and that the executive order likely violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the states would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs. The district court issued a universal injunction, determining that a geographically limited injunction would not provide complete relief to the states.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The court found that the states had standing due to the economic harm they would suffer from the loss of federal reimbursements and the administrative burden of complying with the executive order. The court also concluded that the universal preliminary injunction was necessary to provide complete relief to the states, as a geographically limited injunction would not address the administrative and financial burdens imposed by the executive order. View "Washington v. Trump" on Justia Law