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

Lucila Magana-Magana, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States unlawfully in 1995. She faced a series of abusive relationships, including with Rafael Camacho and later Clyde Wakefield, whom she married in 2017. Wakefield's abuse led to their separation and eventual divorce. In 2007, Magana-Magana was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. She applied for cancellation of removal, citing hardship to her U.S. citizen children, but her request was denied by an immigration judge (IJ) and later by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Her appeal to the Ninth Circuit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.In January 2022, Magana-Magana filed a motion with the BIA to reopen her removal proceedings, citing new evidence of abuse by Wakefield and her application for benefits under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The BIA denied her motion, stating it was untimely and that she had not demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" to waive the one-year filing deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination of "extraordinary circumstances" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III), as it involved applying a legal standard to undisputed facts. The court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the abuse suffered by Magana-Magana did not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and that there was no basis to conclude that such circumstances caused the delay in filing her motion. The court also rejected her other arguments, including her unexhausted equitable-tolling claim and the BIA's discretionary decision not to reopen the case sua sponte. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "MAGANA-MAGANA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, arrived in the United States without documentation in May 2013 and sought asylum, claiming persecution due to his political opinions and association with the Mann Party. An immigration judge (IJ) found inconsistencies in Singh's testimony regarding his political affiliations and the circumstances of his father's death, leading to an adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the IJ denied Singh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, and the Ninth Circuit denied Singh's petition for review.In July 2021, Singh filed a motion to reopen his case, citing new fears of persecution due to India's passage of agricultural reform laws. He claimed eligibility for relief based on his religion as a Sikh, his membership in a particular social group of farmers, and his political opinions opposing the new laws. Singh submitted new evidence, including a sworn statement detailing threats and assaults against his family by the police and members of the BJP Party, medical records, photos of protests, land ownership papers, and news articles about the persecution of farmers and Sikhs.The BIA denied Singh's motion to reopen, concluding that the new evidence was immaterial due to the prior adverse credibility determination. The BIA found that Singh's new affidavit and documentary evidence did not sufficiently establish an individualized risk of persecution or torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the BIA improperly relied on the prior adverse credibility determination to discredit Singh's new evidence. The court held that the BIA must credit evidence supporting a motion to reopen unless the facts asserted are inherently unbelievable. The Ninth Circuit granted Singh's petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BIA to address Singh's new factual assertions independently of the prior adverse credibility finding. View "SINGH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

A California corporation, China Unicom (Americas) Operations Limited (CUA), was authorized to provide domestic and international telecommunications services under certificates issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to § 214 of the Communications Act of 1934. In 2020, the FCC ordered CUA to show cause why its certificates should not be revoked due to national security concerns related to its Chinese government ownership. CUA responded, but the FCC found the responses inadequate and initiated revocation proceedings.The FCC's International, Wireline Competition, and Enforcement Bureaus issued an order to show cause, citing national security concerns and CUA's lack of candor. CUA argued against the revocation, claiming the FCC lacked authority and that it was entitled to a formal hearing. The FCC, however, found CUA's responses insufficient and proceeded with revocation based on national security risks and CUA's lack of trustworthiness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FCC has the authority to revoke § 214 certificates based on national security concerns and that the FCC's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court found that CUA's ultimate Chinese government ownership and the overlap of its board members with the Chinese Communist Party posed significant national security risks. Additionally, the court upheld the FCC's finding that CUA demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness in its dealings with the FCC.The court also rejected CUA's procedural arguments, concluding that the FCC followed appropriate procedures and that a formal evidentiary hearing was not required. The Ninth Circuit denied CUA's petition for review, affirming the FCC's revocation of CUA's § 214 certificates. View "CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) OPERA V. FCC" on Justia Law

Steven Catlin, a California state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1990 conviction for the murders of his fourth wife, Joyce Catlin, and his adoptive mother, Martha Catlin, as well as his death sentence. Catlin was convicted of murdering three family members with paraquat, a poisonous herbicide. The habeas petition in this case relates to his convictions for the murders of Joyce and Martha and the death sentence for Martha’s murder.The California Supreme Court (CSC) summarily denied Catlin’s first state habeas petition on the merits in 2007 and rejected his second state habeas petition in 2013 as procedurally barred. The district court denied Catlin’s federal habeas petition and his motion for discovery and evidentiary development in 2019, granting a certificate of appealability on several claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Catlin’s claims under the deferential standard set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Catlin’s habeas petition, concluding that the CSC reasonably rejected Catlin’s claims. The court held that the CSC acted reasonably in rejecting Catlin’s claims of error arising from the state trial judge’s ex parte discussion with a juror, concluding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases of Catlin’s trial, and determining that there was no violation of due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.The Ninth Circuit also declined to issue a certificate of appealability for Catlin’s uncertified claim that the state violated his due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and presenting false evidence. The court found that no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s resolution of this claim. View "CATLIN V. BROOMFIELD" on Justia Law

Vitaliy Chmukh, a native and citizen of Ukraine, came to the United States as a refugee in 2001. In 2017, he was involved in using a stolen vehicle to steal packages from porches, leading to his arrest. He pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen vehicle under RCW § 9A.56.068 and possession of heroin under RCW § 69.50.4013. He was sentenced to 43 months for the stolen vehicle charge and 24 months for the controlled substance charge, serving 38 months in total.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged Chmukh with removability based on these convictions, alleging that the stolen vehicle conviction was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and that the controlled substance conviction violated the Controlled Substances Act. An immigration judge (IJ) found him removable and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that the stolen vehicle conviction was an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime, making him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Chmukh’s conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) because it matched the generic federal offense of possession of stolen property, requiring possession, actual knowledge that the property was stolen, and intent to deprive the owner of the property. The court also found that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, barring withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B). The court rejected Chmukh’s arguments that the statute was overbroad and that the agency erred in its analysis. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit denied Chmukh’s petition for review. View "CHMUKH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Andrew Nisbet petitioned for the return of his two young children to Scotland under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children had been taken to the United States by their mother, Spirit Bridger, in June 2022. Nisbet argued that the children were habitual residents of Scotland and that Bridger had wrongfully removed them.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, after a bench trial, denied Nisbet's petition. The court found that Nisbet failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were habitual residents of Scotland. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the children's lack of meaningful relationships in Scotland, Bridger's credible testimony that she never intended for Scotland to be a permanent home, and her lack of ties to Scotland.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in its findings. The court emphasized that the district court properly considered the children's lack of meaningful connections in Scotland and Bridger's intentions and circumstances as the sole caregiving parent. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the children did not have a habitual residence in Scotland under the Hague Convention, and therefore, Bridger did not wrongfully remove them. View "Nisbet v. Bridger" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation, Moving Oxnard Forward (MOF), challenged campaign finance limitations in the Oxnard City Code, alleging they violated the First Amendment. The limitations, adopted by the City of Oxnard, California, primarily affected Aaron Starr, MOF's President, who had a history of receiving large contributions and challenging the City Council's policies. Starr had previously led recall efforts against the City Council and ran for Mayor, relying on larger-dollar contributions.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the City, upholding the campaign finance limitations. MOF appealed the decision, arguing that the limitations were designed to target and suppress Starr's political activities rather than to prevent corruption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found significant "danger signs" of invidious discrimination against Starr. The court noted that the legislative record and the practical impact of the limitations disproportionately affected Starr, who had been a vocal critic of the City Council. The court also found that the City's justification for the limitations, based on a 2010 corruption scandal, was tenuous and unrelated to campaign contributions.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the contribution limits were not narrowly tailored to the City's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. Instead, the limits appeared to be more closely drawn to suppress Starr's political activities. As a result, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of MOF, holding that the per-candidate aggregate contribution limitations in the Oxnard City Code violated the First Amendment. View "MOVING OXNARD FORWARD, INC. V. ASCENSION" on Justia Law

Nathan Wilson and Christopher Beasley were alleged to have set fire to a police car during a protest in Santa Monica, California, following the killing of George Floyd. They were federally indicted on one count of arson. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing they were selectively prosecuted based on perceived anti-government views. Alternatively, they sought discovery on their selective-prosecution claim.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss but granted discovery on the selective-prosecution claim. The government indicated it would seek appellate review rather than comply with the discovery order, leading the district court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, which allows for government appeals in criminal cases without requiring final decisions. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by granting discovery based on an erroneous view of the law. The district court had incorrectly defined the control group for determining discriminatory effect, failing to account for relevant factors beyond committing the same crime in the same location.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s selective-prosecution discovery order and the dismissal of the indictment without prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not address whether the defendants presented evidence of discriminatory intent. View "USA V. WILSON" on Justia Law

Teradata Corporation sued SAP SE, alleging that SAP illegally conditioned sales of its business-management software (S/4HANA) on the purchase of its back-end database engine (HANA) in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and misappropriated Teradata’s trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Teradata claimed that SAP’s tying arrangement forced customers to buy HANA, harming competition in the enterprise data warehousing (EDW) market. Teradata also alleged that SAP used its confidential batched merge method, a technique for efficient data aggregation, without authorization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of SAP. The court excluded Teradata’s expert testimony on market definition and market power, finding the methodology unreliable. Without this testimony, the court concluded that Teradata failed to create a material dispute on its tying claim. The court also ruled against Teradata on the trade secret claim, stating that Teradata did not properly designate the batched merge method as confidential and that the agreements between the parties gave SAP the right to use the method.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert’s testimony, which was based on reasonable methodologies. The court found that Teradata raised a triable issue regarding SAP’s market power in the tying market and the anticompetitive effects in the tied market. The court also determined that there were material factual disputes regarding whether Teradata properly designated the batched merge method as confidential and whether the agreements allowed SAP to use the method. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TERADATA CORPORATION V. SAP SE" on Justia Law

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law