Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
19-72446
|
Suate-Orellana v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals' failure to consider asylum seeker's argument that her removal notice was legally deficient merited remand of her case for reconsideration of her claim in light of intervening authorities. |
Immigration |
|
J. Nguyen | May 8, 2024 |
17-10548
|
U.S. v. Hansen
Supreme Court's decision in *United States v. Hansen* compelled the insertion of an intentionality element into the jury instruction for encouraging or inducing an alien to reside unlawfully. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gould | Apr. 4, 2024 |
22-211
|
Singh v. Garland
Asylum seeker was erroneously denied a finding (and the associated burden-shifting presumption) that he suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. |
Immigration |
|
K. Vratil | Mar. 25, 2024 |
22-970
|
Tapia Coria v. Garland
Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review Board of Immigration Appeals determination because *Nasrallah v. Barr* abrogated the "on the merits" exception to the "criminal alien bar." |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Mar. 20, 2024 |
22-666
|
Wilkinson v. Garland
An Immigration Judge's "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship determination was a mixed question of law and fact that was reviewable under 8 United States Code Section 1252(a)(2)(D). |
Immigration |
|
S. Sotomayor | Mar. 20, 2024 |
22-50146
|
U.S. v. Orozco-Orozco
California carjacking statute was not a categorical match for generic theft offense and could not serve as the predicate offense for expedited removal purposes under the Immigration and Nationality Act. |
Immigration |
|
M. Christen | Mar. 13, 2024 |
21-895
|
Kalulu v. Garland
Immigration Judge's determination that Zambian lesbian's claims of future persecution lacked credibility was supported by substantial evidence. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Mar. 12, 2024 |
21-1244
|
Uribe Adrade v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals did not commit legal error in finding that asylum petitioner's proposed social group (Mexicans with psychotic mental health disorders) lacked particularity. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Mar. 4, 2024 |
23-9
|
Guzman-Maldonado v. Garland
Under the categorical approach, state-level armed robbery conviction carrying prison term of more than one year was an aggravated felony for immigration removability purposes. |
Immigration |
|
A. Hurwitz | Feb. 15, 2024 |
20-72510
|
Amended Opinion: Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland
Ninth Circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear petitioner's appeal from Board of Immigration's decision to denying his request to cancel removal or adjust his immigration status. |
Immigration |
|
D. Ezra | Feb. 7, 2024 |
21-50031
|
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Godinez
Government was not required to provide further clarification to non-citizen regarding his Miranda and administrative rights where they were not contradictory or confusing. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Jan. 4, 2024 |
21-411
|
Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals failure to properly evaluate asylum applicant's request to reopen constituted abuse of discretion when application provided documented reasons for missing deadline. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gilman | Dec. 29, 2023 |
21-456
|
Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland
Petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because Revised Code of Washington Section 9A.46.020 for misdemeanor harassment was a categorical crime of violence. |
Immigration |
|
J. Rawlinson | Dec. 28, 2023 |
22-16700
|
Babaria v. Blinken
Immigrants seeking injunctive relief could not demonstrate regulation requiring available visas before approving employment-based adjustment applications violated congressional intent. |
Immigration |
|
J. Nguyen | Dec. 4, 2023 |
22-1168
|
Tellez-Ramirez v. Garland
Permanent resident's removal was correct as his drug conviction under Idaho law was an aggravated felony because it matched relevant federal crime. |
Immigration |
|
S. Graber | Nov. 30, 2023 |
21-352
|
Zuniga De La Cruz v. Garland
Exclusionary rule does not apply to civil immigration proceedings, so statements admitting illegal presence in the United States were admissible absent any evidence of coercion. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Nov. 20, 2023 |
18-71220
|
Hermosillo v. Garland
Noncitizen was entitled to merits hearting because his credible testimony regarding cartel violence against relatives was sufficient for preliminary showing that he faced reasonable possibility of torture if removed. |
Immigration |
|
J. Sung | Sep. 15, 2023 |
21-1098
|
Rudnitskyy v. Garland
Lawful permanent resident convicted of aggravated felony after residing in the United States for seven years was ineligible for relief because he committed the offense before the seven year period ended. |
Immigration |
|
J. Sung | Sep. 15, 2023 |
15-72821
|
Alonso-Juarez v. Garland
A petitioner must file a petition for review of an immigration judge's determination of reasonable fear of persecution or torture thirty days after the reasonable fear proceeding. |
Immigration |
|
M. Murguia | Sep. 11, 2023 |
21-10260
|
U.S. v. Portillo-Gonzalez
Defendant's challenge to removal order was not challengeable because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and was not deprived of judicial review. |
Immigration |
|
D. Collins | Sep. 1, 2023 |
20-73447
|
Flores-Vasquez v. Garland
Under the categorical approach, conviction under Oregon menacing statute was not a crime involving moral turpitude because conviction did not require the infliction of actual harm on another. |
Immigration |
|
G. Sanchez | Sep. 1, 2023 |
18-71987
|
Amended Opinion: Duenas v. Garland
The appointment and removal processes for Immigration Judges and BIA members comport with Article II of the Constitution, because they are inferior officers, rather than principal officers. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Aug. 25, 2023 |
18-70225
|
Reyes-Corado v. Garland
Changed circumstances were sufficient to reopen removal proceedings where the petitioner's fear of persecution asserted in the original proceedings had not changed but had become more serious and real. |
Immigration |
|
L. Koh | Aug. 14, 2023 |
20-71977
|
Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland
Denial of motion to reopen based on the petitioner's failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal required remand where the wrong standard of proof was applied. |
Immigration |
|
J. Nguyen | Aug. 9, 2023 |
18-71987
|
Duenas v. Garland
The appointment and removal processes for Immigration Judges and BIA members comport with Article II of the Constitution, because they are inferior officers, rather than principal officers. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Jul. 28, 2023 |
21-70623
|
Park v. Garland
Permanent resident's petition was denied because he did not overcome the presumption that drug-trafficking crimes are serious offenses. |
Immigration |
|
D. Forrest | Jun. 30, 2023 |
21-70431
|
Ramirez Munoz v. Garland
Petitioner's misrepresentations about citizenship to police for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings did not render him inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of immigration status. |
Immigration |
|
J. Nguyen | Jun. 27, 2023 |
22-179
|
U.S v. Hansen
Immigration statute prohibiting encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration was not unconstitutionally overbroad because those terms had well-established legal meanings, so it did not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. |
Immigration |
|
A. Barrett | Jun. 26, 2023 |
22-23
|
Pugin v. Garland
Noncitizens' criminal offenses made them eligible for removal because they were aggravated felonies related to the obstruction of justice even though there was no associated pending investigation or proceeding. |
Immigration |
|
B. Kavanaugh | Jun. 23, 2023 |
20-72510
|
Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland
Ninth Circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear petitioner's appeal from Board of Immigration's decision to denying his request to cancel removal or adjust his immigration status. |
Immigration |
|
D. Ezra | Jun. 21, 2023 |