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

The Ninth Circuit denied separate petitions for review filed by Velasquez-Rios and Desai, holding that an amendment to section 18.5 of the California Penal Code, which retroactively reduces the maximum misdemeanor sentence to 364 days, cannot be applied retroactively for purposes of removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).The panel rejected petitioners' contention that the BIA erred by relying on McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011), and United States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016). In McNeil, the Supreme Court held that retroactive changes to North Carolina's state-law sentencing scheme did not change the historical fact that the defendant had been convicted of two felonies. In Diaz, this court concluded that California's reclassification of Diaz's two felony convictions as misdemeanors did not invalidate his enhanced sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841. Relying upon McNeill, the panel held that the statute called for a backward-looking inquiry to the initial date of conviction, rather than the current state of California law, and that the triggering event under section 841 was when the two felony drug offenses had "become final." The panel rejected petitioners' arguments and further explained that its approach aligns with the Supreme Court's admonishments that federal laws should be construed to achieve national uniformity, and explained that its decision avoids the "absurd" results described in McNeill that would follow from petitioners' approach, under which an alien's removability would depend on the timing of the immigration proceeding. Finally, the panel held that federal law standards cannot be altered or contradicted retroactively by state law actions, and cannot be manipulated after the fact by state laws modifying sentences that at the time of conviction permitted removal or that precluded cancellation. View "Velasquez-Rios v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision determining that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The panel held that the BIA reasonably concluded that petitioner had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed based on his conviction for the offense of knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a fighting venture under 7 U.S.C. 2156(a)(1). The panel deferred to the BIA's conclusion that, pursuant to the cross-reference in section 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if the alien has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or more may be imposed, regardless of whether the alien meets the immigration prerequisites for inadmissibility or deportability. View "Ortega-Lopez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The conduct proscribed by Oregon's former marijuana delivery statute, Or. Rev. Stat. 475.860 (2011), does not constitute the federal generic crime of "illicit trafficking of a controlled substance," under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B).The Ninth Circuit held that the Oregon statute criminalizes more conduct—namely, solicitation—than does the federal generic crime. The panel concluded that "illicit trafficking" does not include solicitation offenses and thus Oregon's former crime of marijuana delivery for consideration, Or. Rev. Stat. 475.860(2)(a), does not qualify as an aggravated felony under section 1101(a)(43)(B). In this case, the BIA erred in relying on Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2008), especially given the panel's earlier precedent establishing that solicitation offenses do not fall under the controlled substance ground for deportation under section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, the panel granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cortes-Maldonado v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of an IJ's order of removal, holding that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that petitioner failed to show a well founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground.In this case, petitioner was not credible because of his inconsistent statements about why he left Brazil and the BIA reasonably found it implausible that petitioner randomly encountered General Kangama’s nephew at a Brazilian bus stop after only a few days in the country. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's decision that petitioner did not rehabilitate his testimony with sufficient corroborating evidence, and the BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence petitioner provided was entitled to limited weight. Furthermore, the evidence does not meet the high threshold of establishing that it is more likely than not that petitioner will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Finally, petitioner's due process rights were not violated based on transcription issues and a credible fear review hearing. View "Mukulumbutu v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Government challenges the district court's preliminary injunction entered in response to plaintiffs' claims that conditions at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center, where they were detained, placed them at unconstitutional risk of contracting COVID-19. After oral argument, 38 detainees had tested positive for COVID-19, over 300 were awaiting test results, and 9 had been hospitalized.The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part the preliminary injunction order, holding that the district court was permitted to order the reduction of Adelanto's population, which may have required the release of some detainees, if such a remedy was necessary to cure the alleged constitutional violations. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing some form of preliminary injunctive relief in response to plaintiffs' due process claims. The panel explained that, in light of the district court's factual findings which the Government has not shown to be clearly erroneous, the conditions at Adelanto in April 2020 violated detainees' due process right to reasonable safety where Adelanto was so crowded that social distancing to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus was impossible, detainees had inadequate access to masks, guards were not required to wear masks, there was not enough soap or hand sanitizer to go around, detainees were responsible for cleaning the facility with only dirty towels and dirty water, detainees were compelled to sleep with less than six feet of distance between them, and not all new arrivals were being properly quarantined or tested. The panel stated that the Government was aware of the risks and its inadequate response reflected a reckless disregard for detainee safety. Therefore, the district court rightly concluded that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits. Furthermore, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent relief given COVID-19's high mortality rate, and the equities and public interest tipped in plaintiffs' favor. The panel further held that the district court did not err by provisionally certifying a class of all Adelanto detainees. In light of the changed circumstances at Adelanto since the preliminary injunction was entered, the panel vacated in part and remanded in part for the district court to address the current circumstances. View "Hernandez Roman v. Wolf" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying asylum and related relief to petitioner, holding that substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that, had petitioner reported her abuse, the Guatemalan government could have protected her from her ex-boyfriend. The panel stated that, although the State Department reports make clear that Guatemala still has a long way to go in addressing domestic violence, the country's efforts, coupled with the pleas of petitioner's acquaintances, suggest that she could have obtained help.The panel also held that petitioner waived any argument as to her claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by failing to specifically and distinctly discuss the matter in her opening brief. In any event, such an argument would have failed because she has not shown a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of public officials. View "Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr" on Justia Law

The en banc court overruled Minto v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 2017), and held that petitioner, who was present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) when the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) became applicable there, was not removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(a)(i). Section 1182(a)(7)(a)(i) applies to noncitizens who do not possess a valid entry document "at the time of application for admission." The en banc court held that the phrase "at the time of application for admission" refers to the particular point in time when a noncitizen submits an application to physically enter into the United States. Therefore, the en banc court granted the petition for review to the extent that the BIA determined that petitioner was removable "as an intending immigrant without a . . . valid entry document" under section 1182(a)(7).The en banc court held that the BIA properly concluded that petitioner is ineligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal where substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to carry her burden of establishing ten years of continuous presence in the United States. Therefore, the en banc court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review, and remanded to the agency for a determination in the first instance as to whether petitioner was removable under the second ground originally charged in the Notice to Appear— removability as "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled" under section 1182(a)(6). View "Torres v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of immigration relief to petitioner. The panel held that Matter of Wu, 27 I. & N. Dec. 8 (BIA 2017), which held that California Penal Code section 245(a)(1), which proscribes certain aggravated forms of assault, is categorically a "crime involving moral turpitude" for purposes of the immigration laws, is consistent with Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) and entitled to deference. Therefore, the panel held that the BIA correctly determined that petitioner's conviction under section 245(a)(1) was for a crime involving moral turpitude and that he was therefore inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The panel lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's challenges to the denial of his waiver under section 212(h) of the INA, because he failed to raise a cognizable legal or constitutional question concerning that determination. View "Safaryan v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that petitioner has adequately exhausted his particularly serious crime argument but that the BIA and IJ did not err in concluding that petitioner's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(A)(2), constitutes a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal.The panel also held that the termination of petitioner's grant of asylum by reopening his asylum-only proceeding was not error, and the IJ did not have jurisdiction to consider his request for an adjustment of status because of the limited scope of such proceedings. The panel stated that petitioner's request for an adjustment of status should have been made to the USCIS, not the IJ. View "Bare v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction barring implementation of decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations of Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, and El Salvador. The TPS program is a congressionally created humanitarian program administered by DHS that provides temporary relief to nationals of designated foreign countries that have been stricken by a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state."The panel held that judicial review of plaintiffs' claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is barred by 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A). Under the TPS statute, the Secretary possesses full and unreviewable discretion as to whether to consider intervening events in making a TPS determination. In this case, plaintiffs' attempt to rely on the APA to invoke justiciability over what would otherwise be an unreviewable challenge to specific TPS determinations, constitutes an impermissible circumvention of section 1254a(b)(5)(A).The panel also held that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success, or even serious questions, on the merits of their Equal Protection claim. The district court found that the DHS Secretaries were influenced by President Trump and/or the White House in their TPS decisionmaking, and that President Trump had expressed animus against non-white, non-European immigrants. However, without any evidence linking them, the panel concluded that these two factual findings alone cannot support a finding of discriminatory purpose for the TPS terminations. View "Ramos v. Wolf" on Justia Law