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

Petitioner, a Russian citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court granted the petition, concluding that petitioner met his burden of presenting evidence that the Russian government was unable or unwilling to control the nongovernmental actors who persecuted him because he was a homosexual; in order to obtain relief petitioner requested, he was not required to demonstrate that the Russian government sponsored or condoned the persecution of homosexuals or was unwilling for that reason to control persecution; and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for removal because his conviction for racketeering under Arizona law constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(J). The language in the indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing order was clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was convicted of an offense coming within the definition of "aggravated felony." Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that the BIA did not err in determining that the Arizona conviction constituted an aggravated felony and that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. View "Murillo-Prado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Pakistan, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from a final order of removal under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), because they remained in the United States for longer than permitted. The order also held that the wife was removeable for misrepresenting a material fact, and declared that the wife had filed a frivolous asylum application. Where, as here, the sole witness refused to answer questions, DHS could not satisfy its burden in the absence of any substantive evidence based solely upon the adverse inference drawn from silence. Therefore, the court concluded that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing the grounds for termination of asylum by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of petitioners' remaining arguments. The court granted the petition for review. View "Urooj v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner was denied due process when the government was allowed to introduce its forensic report on a medical document without prior notice and by refusing a continuance to allow petitioner to investigate the report; the court concluded that petitioner had suffered past persecution; but the court rejected petitioner's contention that the government improperly disclosed information contained in his asylum application. The court granted the petition, remanding to allow petitioner a reasonable opportunity to investigate the forensic report on the medical report and to present additional evidence. View "Bondarenko v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioner was charged with seventeen counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon children in violation of various provisions of the California Penal Code. The court denied the petition, holding that petitioner was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) because petitioner's state crime of conviction, California Penal Code section 288(c)(1), was a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) where it posed a substantial risk of the use of physical force. View "Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Arizona’s 2010 Senate Bill 1070 includes various immigration-related provisions, passed in response to the growing presence of unauthorized aliens in Arizona. The stated purpose of S.B. 1070 is “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and government agencies in Arizona” by creating “a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defin[ing] the immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers.” Section 13-2929 of the Bill attempts to criminalize transporting, concealing, harboring, or attempting to transport, conceal, or harbor an unauthorized alien under certain circumstances and to criminalize inducing or encouraging an unauthorized alien to come to or reside in Arizona. The district court entered a preliminary injunction with respect to 13-2929 on the basis that it is preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute, as written, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause because one of its key elements—being “in violation of a criminal offense”—is unintelligible. The provision is also preempted by federal law and invalid under the Supremacy Clause. View "Valle del Sol, Inc. v. State of Arizona" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Arqueta-Ramos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner did not present evidence of imputed political opinion that would compel any reasonable factfinder to conclude that petitioner was subject to persecution because of imputed political beliefs; the reports submitted by petitioner did not compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government had acquiesced in torture against women, whether as a result of corruption or through cooperation with criminals; and, therefore, substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not persecuted "on account of" a protected ground and that petitioner failed to establish the state action necessary for CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Milian v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Armenia, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision declaring her asylum application frivolous. The BIA affirmed the IJ's determination that petitioner knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and that she was statutorily barred from adjustment of status and a 8 U.S.C. 1182(i) waiver on that basis. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record that supported the IJ's and BIA's findings that petitioner received the required warnings and petitioners' arguments to the contrary were without merit. In Matter of X-M-C-, 25I. & N., the BIA held that the only action required to trigger a frivolousness inquiry was the filing of an asylum application and that the IJ and BIA were not prevented from finding that an application was frivolous simply because the applicant withdrew the application or recanted false statements. Even if 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6) were ambiguous, the court nonetheless owed Chevron deference to the BIA's published interpretation of the statute, which was reasonable and well-grounded in the policy behind the statute. Accordingly, the court held that section 2258(d)(6) permitted a frivolousness finding based on a withdrawn application and denied the petition for review. View "Kulakchyan v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in Mexico, appealed the denial of her request for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court issued the opinion to clarify that DHS could seek to terminate a prior grant of withholding of removal in conjunction with removal proceedings as long as DHS met its burden of demonstrating the grounds for doing so. The court held that two separate proceedings were not required under 8 C.F.R. 1208.24(f). The court concluded that: (1) DHS could file a Notice of Appeal when an alien was subject to an extant withholding of removal; (2) there need not be a separate hearing on the termination of the withholding; (3) the government had the burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the evidence the grounds for the termination of withholding; (4) the government met its burden by submitting official state records of petitioner's state convictions; and (5) petitioner had not shown a denial of procedural due process because her proceedings were not fundamentally unfair and further proceedings would not have changed the outcome. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gutierrez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law