Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
22-35233
|
Koonwaiyou v. Blinken
Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act expanding eligibility non-citizen national status at birth applied to otherwise qualified individual who was born prior to the enactment of the amendments. |
Immigration |
|
L. Koh | Jun. 8, 2023 |
19-72024
|
Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland
Asylum seeker's petition properly denied when substantial evidence showed that robber's chief motivation was financial gain rather than because of petitioner's protected status. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Jun. 8, 2023 |
21-298
|
Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland
Immigration Judge denied petitioner due process by refusing continuance and deeming application abandoned despite counsel's requests to immediately file asylum application that day. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gilman | Jun. 8, 2023 |
21-584
|
Zhovtonizhko v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals failed to acknowledge the materiality of legislature's changes to statute, which affected whether petitioner's crimes involved "moral turpitude" and thus rendered him removable. |
Immigration |
|
J. Bybee | Jun. 8, 2023 |
20-16142
|
Amended Opinion: Hernandez Avilez v. Garland
Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under United States Code Section 1226(c) are not eligible for release on bond during the judicial phase of the proceedings. |
Immigration |
|
M. Murguia | Jun. 7, 2023 |
19-70964
|
Amended Opinion: Umana-Escobar v. Garland
Application of incorrect standard of review to Immigration Judge's determination--that there was insufficient nexus between immigrant's membership in protected group and harm faced in his home country--required remand. |
Immigration |
|
M. Bennett | May 24, 2023 |
21-1436
|
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
The exhaustion requirement for a noncitizen seeking review of a removal order is not jurisdictional. |
Immigration |
|
K. Jackson | May 12, 2023 |
16-56795
|
Mejia Vega v. USCIS
Court was jurisdictionally barred from reviewing Attorney General's discretionary decision to deny noncitizen's request for a waiver of inadmissibility. |
Immigration |
|
P. Watford | Apr. 17, 2023 |
16-70809
|
Ayanian v. Garland
Using the Ninth Circuit's mediation program to hold proceedings in abeyance while awaiting discretionary relief that may never come rather than resolve a dispute would be an abuse of process. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Apr. 5, 2023 |
21-70909
|
Khalulyan v. Garland
Alien was eligible for removal due to his involvement in a fraudulent criminal conspiracy that resulted in total loss greater than $10,000 regardless of the actual amount of loss he caused. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Mar. 31, 2023 |
19-72903
|
Alfred v. Garland
Alien convicted of robbery was eligible for removal for committing an aggravated felony because state statute for accomplice liability was categorical match with the federal generic definition of accomplice liability. |
Immigration |
|
J. Bybee | Mar. 31, 2023 |
19-70964
|
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
Application of incorrect standard of review to Immigration Judge's determination--that there was insufficient nexus between immigrant's membership in protected group and harm faced in his home country--required remand. |
Immigration |
|
M. Bennett | Mar. 20, 2023 |
17-71012
|
Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals properly denied Nicaraguan citizen's application for asylum because he presented no evidence brother's gang involvement or father's political activism would lead to future persecution. |
Immigration |
|
R. Bennett | Mar. 16, 2023 |
20-71956
|
Lopez Hernandez v. Garland
Immigrant appellee seeking withholding of removal could not have judgment altered in his favor because he failed to file a cross-appeal. |
Immigration |
|
E. Miller | Feb. 17, 2023 |