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

Christian Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, was brought to the United States by his mother at the age of two to escape domestic violence from his father. Lopez lived in the U.S. without lawful status for thirteen years before obtaining T-5 nonimmigrant status in 2013. In 2017, he inadvertently allowed his T-5 status to expire. In 2019, Lopez was arrested and later convicted of multiple offenses, including four counts of petit larceny under the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) § 8.10.040. Following his release from prison, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him.An immigration judge (IJ) found Lopez removable for committing crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that Lopez's asylum application was untimely and that he failed to demonstrate a nexus between his fear of future harm and any protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that Lopez's municipal convictions involved CIMTs and that he did not qualify for an exception to the asylum filing deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Lopez's petition for review. The court held that Lopez's petit larceny convictions under RMC § 8.10.040 are CIMTs, making him removable. The court also concluded that the BIA's interpretation of the statute regarding CIMTs was entitled to respect under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Additionally, the court found that the lack of availability of a pardon for a conviction does not render the conviction an improper basis for removal. Finally, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal, as Lopez did not demonstrate that he would face future persecution in Mexico based on his identity as his mother's son. View "LOPEZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Oswaldo Favio Dominguez Ojeda, a native and citizen of Peru, faced reinstatement of a prior removal order by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2023. He expressed fear of returning to Peru, citing multiple incidents of harm and threats from members of the political group Peru Libre. An asylum officer conducted a reasonable fear screening interview but determined that Dominguez Ojeda did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. Dominguez Ojeda sought review of this negative determination.The matter was referred to an Immigration Judge (IJ) for a reasonable fear review hearing. During this hearing, Dominguez Ojeda attempted to introduce new evidence, including claims of being raped by Peru Libre members and country conditions reports. The IJ refused to consider this new evidence, mistakenly believing that he lacked the discretion to review evidence not initially presented to the asylum officer. The IJ cited the case Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, which allows an IJ to exercise discretion in considering new evidence, but still concluded that he could not review the new evidence. Consequently, the IJ upheld the asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJ committed legal error by failing to exercise discretion regarding the consideration of new evidence. The court clarified that while an IJ is not required to consider new evidence at a reasonable fear hearing, the IJ must exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject such evidence. The Ninth Circuit granted Dominguez Ojeda’s petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the IJ to properly exercise discretion in considering the new evidence. View "OJEDA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Zohaib Zia, a citizen of Pakistan, entered the United States as a conditional permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, Anum Haq. After their marriage ended in divorce, Zia sought a waiver to remove the conditions on his residency, claiming the marriage was entered into in good faith. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his petition, finding the marriage was not in good faith, and terminated his conditional status. The Department of Homeland Security then issued a notice to appear, charging him as removable. Zia renewed his petition before an Immigration Judge (IJ), who also denied it, citing an adverse credibility finding and insufficient evidence of a good faith marriage.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the adverse credibility determination and finding the remaining evidence insufficient to prove a good faith marriage. Zia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the BIA erred in its findings and that his due process rights were violated due to an incomplete hearing transcript.The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the adverse credibility finding, as such factual determinations are unreviewable under Patel v. Garland. The court also found that while it had limited jurisdiction to review the good faith marriage determination as a mixed question of fact and law, the BIA's decision was not in error. The court concluded that Zia's testimony was of little weight due to the adverse credibility finding, and the remaining evidence did not compel a reversal. Additionally, the court rejected Zia's due process claim, finding no prejudice from the incomplete transcript. The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part. View "ZIA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Victor Meza-Carmona, born in Mexico to a U.S. citizen mother, Victoria, claimed U.S. citizenship based on his mother's status. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) (1952), Victoria could transmit citizenship to him only if she had been physically present in the U.S. for a continuous period of one year before his birth. Victoria was born in Los Angeles and baptized in El Paso, Texas, but later moved to Mexico. The case hinges on whether Victoria met the continuous physical presence requirement.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Meza-Carmona in 2012. An immigration judge ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Meza-Carmona then petitioned for review. The Ninth Circuit transferred the case to the District of Arizona to resolve factual disputes about his citizenship claim. The district court found that Meza-Carmona failed to prove his mother's continuous physical presence in the U.S. for one year before his birth.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's findings. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) requires a person claiming citizenship to show that their mother stayed in the U.S. for one year without leaving. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Meza-Carmona failed to establish his mother's continuous presence. The evidence allowed for either inference—that Victoria stayed continuously in the U.S. or that she did not. Given the record, the district court's conclusion was not clear error. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit denied Meza-Carmona's petition for review. View "MEZA-CARMONA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1990. In 1999, she was convicted of possession for sale of methamphetamine in California. In 2015, upon returning from a trip to Mexico, she was detained and later charged with inadmissibility due to her drug conviction. She sought cancellation of removal and later moved to terminate the removal proceedings.The Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charges of removability and denied her relief, ordering her removal to Mexico. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), requesting remand to the IJ to pursue derivative U visa status based on her husband's pending U visa application. She also moved for administrative closure of her removal proceedings. The BIA dismissed her appeal and denied both motions, finding it speculative whether she would receive U visa relief and noting the need for an inadmissibility waiver due to her conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motions for remand and administrative closure due to the criminal jurisdiction bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). The court found that the petitioner’s motions merged with her final order of removal and that judicial review does not extend to factual challenges to the final removal order. The court also noted that the decision did not disturb the result in Alvarez-Santos v. INS, which requires an agency determination of removability based on a covered conviction for the criminal alien bar to apply. The petition for review was dismissed. View "CORIA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Claude Stephen Bent, a lawful permanent resident from Jamaica, pleaded no contest to two felony charges in California in 2006. The judge did not inform him of the immigration consequences of his plea. After serving his sentence, Bent was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2016 and charged with removability based on his felony conviction. Bent applied for asylum and other relief, but an immigration judge (IJ) denied his application and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Bent appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case to the BIA. The BIA again dismissed his appeal, and Bent petitioned for review.Bent moved to vacate his 2006 conviction in California state court, which was granted in 2022 on the grounds that his plea was involuntary and violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Bent then moved to reopen his removal proceedings before the BIA, arguing that his vacated conviction invalidated the basis for his removal. The BIA denied the motion, stating it was untimely and not subject to equitable tolling, and mischaracterized the California statute as allowing vacatur solely to mitigate immigration consequences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA erred in its interpretation of California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) and the state court's order, which vacated Bent's conviction due to a constitutional defect, not to alleviate immigration consequences. The Ninth Circuit also held that the BIA misapplied equitable tolling precedent by not properly assessing whether Bent diligently pursued his rights. The court granted Bent's petition for review in part and remanded the case to the BIA to adjudicate his motion to reopen under the correct legal standards. View "BENT V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani national, was tried in a U.S. district court for his involvement in supporting a terrorist organization responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. He was convicted of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and conspiring to support a foiled plot in Denmark but was acquitted of conspiring to support the Mumbai attacks. After serving seven years in prison and being granted compassionate release, India requested his extradition to face charges related to the Mumbai attacks.The magistrate judge certified Rana as extraditable, rejecting his arguments that the U.S.-India extradition treaty's Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) provision protected him from extradition and that India failed to provide sufficient evidence of probable cause. Rana then filed a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which upheld the magistrate judge's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Rana's habeas corpus petition. The court held that the term "offense" in the extradition treaty refers to a charged crime defined by its elements, not the underlying acts. Therefore, the Non Bis in Idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained distinct elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the U.S. The court also found that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge's finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes. View "RANA V. JENKINS" on Justia Law

Noncitizen laborers were brought into the United States to work for construction subcontractor defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fraudulently applied for B-1 employment visas, which cost less than the petition-based visas they should have applied for, thereby violating the False Claims Act (FCA). Additionally, one plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Prevention Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by threatening prosecution and suing him to coerce other workers to continue working.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the defendants did not have an "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas because they never applied for them, thus no legal obligation existed under the FCA. The court also dismissed the TVPRA claim, finding that the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants' actions coerced him to provide any labor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the defendants had no "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas since they did not apply for them, and thus did not violate the FCA. The court also upheld the dismissal of the TVPRA claim, concluding that the plaintiff did not state a claim because the defendants' actions did not coerce him to provide any labor. The court's main holding was that potential liability for applying for the wrong visas does not constitute an "established duty" to pay under the FCA, and that the TVPRA claim failed because the plaintiff was not coerced into providing labor. The decision was affirmed. View "LESNIK V. ISM VUZEM D.O.O." on Justia Law

The defendant, Rosendo Valdivias-Soto, was indicted for illegally reentering the United States after being previously removed. During his removal proceedings, Valdivias, who only speaks Spanish and has cognitive impairments, was misinformed about his right to counsel due to translation errors. The interpreter repeatedly used the Spanish word for "hire," suggesting that Valdivias could only have an attorney if he could pay for one, which led him to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se. Additionally, the immigration judge (IJ) incorrectly advised him that he was ineligible for any relief due to his aggravated felony conviction, which affected his waiver of the right to appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the indictment, finding that the removal order was invalid due to due process violations. The court held that Valdivias did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel or his right to appeal because of the translation errors and the IJ's incorrect advice. The court also found that Valdivias was prejudiced by these errors, as he could have plausibly obtained a U-visa and avoided deportation if he had been properly informed and represented.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that Valdivias's removal proceedings were fundamentally unfair due to the due process violations stemming from the translation errors and the IJ's misstatements. The court also held that Valdivias satisfied the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies because the erroneous advice and translation errors rendered administrative review unavailable. Finally, the court concluded that Valdivias was improperly deprived of the opportunity for judicial review due to the invalid waiver of his right to appeal. Therefore, the dismissal of the indictment was affirmed. View "United States v. Valdivias-Soto" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Indian nationals residing in the U.S. on nonimmigrant work visas and their children, sought to adjust their status to permanent residents. They challenged policies by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) that determine the eligibility of derivative beneficiaries, claiming these policies violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, allowing them to amend their complaint. Instead of amending, the plaintiffs appealed. During the appeal, the Supreme Court decided Patel v. Garland, which held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings in discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The government argued that this ruling meant the courts also lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over most of the plaintiffs' claims because they were not ripe. The Ninth Circuit concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not strip federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear collateral challenges to generally applicable policies and procedures. However, the claims were not ripe because the plaintiffs had not applied for adjustment of status, and USCIS had not denied their applications based on the challenged policies. For the one plaintiff who did apply and was denied, the court held that her claims must be channeled through a petition for review from a final order of removal, as per §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (D). The Ninth Circuit's interpretation aligns with other circuits, maintaining that general policy challenges are not precluded by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). View "NAGENDRA NAKKA V. USCIS" on Justia Law