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

Defendant appealed his sentence of twenty-seven months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release for attempted reentry following removal. Defendant had been deported from the United States six times, most recently about a month before his arrest. The same district court judge who sentenced Defendant in this case had presided over his prior sentencing hearing for illegal reentry. On appeal, Defendant raised two challenges to the court’s sentence.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The panel held that so long as Defendant is apprised of the consequences of entering into a Type B plea agreement and accedes to them voluntarily, he has no right to withdraw from the agreement on the ground that the court does not accept the sentencing recommendation or request. Accordingly, the district court’s use of the word “reject” in the context of a Type B plea agreement can have no legal effect. The panel wrote that the record establishes that Defendant was aware of the consequences of entering into a Type B plea agreement, and concluded that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances.   Defendant argued that the district court committed procedural error when it used Defendant’s alleged promise at his prior sentencing hearing not to return to the United States as a sentencing factor. Reviewing for plain error, the panel held that the district court’s factual finding that Defendant had assured the court at the prior sentencing hearing that he would not return to the United States is supported by the record. View "USA V. URBANO TORRES-GILES" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal. He argues that the BIA erred in finding that his prior menacing conviction under Oregon Revised Statute Section 163.190 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal.   The Ninth Circuit granted the petition. The panel held that a conviction under Oregon Revised Statute Section 163.190 does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The panel explained that in the BIA’s precedential decision in Matter of J-G-P-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 642 (BIA 2019), which held that Section 163.190 categorically qualifies as a CIMT, the BIA erred in its analysis of this court’s prior caselaw. The panel remanded for further consideration of Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. View "JOSE FLORES-VASQUEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction after a conditional plea of guilty to a single count of unlawful reentry by a previously removed alien. Defendant contended that his indictment should have been dismissed on the ground that the 2000 removal order underlying his prior removals was invalid due to an error by the immigration judge (“IJ”), at his removal hearing, as to whether he was eligible for voluntary departure.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that, in the respects relevant here, Palomar-Santiago abrogated that caselaw as well. Even assuming arguendo that the IJ’s incorrect statement about Defendant’s eligibility for voluntary departure violated due process and rendered his removal proceedings “fundamentally unfair,” that would not automatically or “effectively” satisfy the requirement in 8 U.S.C. Section 1326(d)(1) that the alien exhausted available administrative remedies, or the requirement in 8 U.S.C. Section 1326(d)(2) that the deportation proceedings improperly deprived the alien of an opportunity for judicial review. The panel therefore concluded that Defendant remains subject to Section 1326(d)’s general rule that he may not challenge the validity of his predicate removal order. View "USA V. PRAXEDIS PORTILLO-GONZALEZ" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These officials exercise significant authority within our immigration system, making them officers under the Appointments Clause.   The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. The panel rejected Petitioner’s suggestion that Immigration Judges and BIA members are principal officers who, under the Appointments Clause of Article II, must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the panel concluded that they are inferior officers (whose appointment may be vested in the head of a department) because the Attorney General ultimately directs and supervises their work. Thus, the panel held that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest their appointment in the Attorney General. The panel next held that the removal process for Immigration Judges and BIA members satisfies Article II, which requires that officers remain accountable to the President by limiting restrictions on the removal of the President’s subordinates. The panel explained that Attorney General has the power to remove Immigration Judges and BIA members, and that nothing restricts the Attorney General’s ability to remove them. Thus, these officers remain dependent on the Attorney General for their positions—and by extension, on the President. View "FORTUNATO AMADOR DUENAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and a sua sponte request for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel: (1) held that the Board of Immigration Appeals legally erred by failing to conduct cumulative-effect review in assessing petitioner’s evidence of past persecution, and (2) remanded for the BIA to reassess the evidence under the correct legal framework. View "NERY SALGUERO SOSA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Petitioner’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.2(c)(1).   The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. The panel explained that the changed circumstances Petitioner presented were entirely outside of his control and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Petitioner’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Petitioner had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group.   The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Petitioner family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Petitioner’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Petitioner’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing. The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. View "FRANCISCO REYES-CORADO V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Petitioner sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof.   The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review. The panel clarified any possible confusion in this circuit’s case law regarding a petitioner’s burden of proof in a motion to reopen. Prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a “reasonable likelihood” that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen was granted. To be eligible for a discretionary grant of relief, a petitioner must present new evidence that “would likely change” the result in the case. Because the BIA erred by applying the wrong legal standard, the panel remanded to the BIA to adjudicate the motion to reopen under the proper standard. View "MARIO FONSECA-FONSECA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the BIA, the panel held that the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the BIA comports with Article II of the Constitution. The panel rejected Petitioner’s suggestion that Immigration Judges and BIA members are principal officers who, under the Appointments Clause of Article II, must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the panel concluded that they are inferior officers (whose appointment may be vested in the head of a department) because the Attorney General ultimately directs and supervises their work. Thus, the panel held that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest their appointment in the Attorney General. The panel next held that the removal process for Immigration Judges and BIA members satisfies Article II, which requires that officers remain accountable to the President by limiting restrictions on the removal of the President’s subordinates. The panel explained that the Attorney General has the power to remove Immigration Judges and BIA members and that nothing restricts the Attorney General’s ability to remove them at will. Thus, these officers remain dependent on the Attorney General for their positions—and by extension, on the President. View "FORTUNATO AMADOR DUENAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Discover Bank seeks to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims that Discover Bank unlawfully discriminated against her based on citizenship and immigration status when it denied her application for a consolidation loan for her student loan. Discover Bank argues that two arbitration agreements—one Plaintiff made in connection with the student loan and one she made in connection with the application for the consolidation loan—require arbitration here. The district court declined to compel arbitration, finding that neither agreement required arbitration.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order declining to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate. The panel held that Discover Bank was judicially estopped from arguing that Perez did not opt out of the Discover Bank agreement. The panel determined that Discover Bank’s past position clearly contradicted its current position that the opt-out would only apply to Plaintiff’s future discrimination claims, Discover Bank persuaded the court to accept its previous position, and Discover Bank would derive an unfair advantage absent estoppel. Citing Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, 977 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2020), the panel further held that Perez and Discover Bank never formed an agreement to arbitrate her discrimination claims involving her application for a consolidation loan via the Citibank agreement. View "ILIANA PEREZ, ET AL V. DISCOVER BANK" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc after a request for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration, in a case in which the panel held that: (1) where the adjudication of a non-citizen’s visa application implicates a citizen’s constitutional rights, due process requires that the government provide timely and adequate notice to the citizen of a decision that will deprive the citizen of that interest; and (2) because the government failed to provide timely notice here, it was not entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. View "SANDRA MUNOZ, ET AL V. DOS, ET AL" on Justia Law