• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

Ninth Circuit Defends Asylum in Two Rulings

In Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, the Ninth Circuit reinstated the previously stayed injunction halting the Remain in Mexico policy. Additionally, in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a rule and presidential proclamation that strip asylum eligibility from migrants who cross into the United States along the southern border with Mexico between designated ports of entry.

Asylum 2.0 in effect outside of 9th Circuit

9th Circuit rules Asylum 2.0 cannot go in effect. At the present time. It would harm those actually applying for asylum.

Court Says California Conviction for Second Degree Murder Based on Aiding and Abetting Theory Qualifies as an Aggravated Felony

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner’s California conviction for second degree murder, based on an aiding and abetting theory, made him removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The court found that California law on aiding and abetting, which looks to the natural and probable consequences of an act the defendant intended, had not materially changed since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez in 2007

CA9 Says Fleeing from Police Under California Vehicle Code §2800.2 Is Not Categorically a CIMT

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision and held that the petitioner’s conviction for fleeing from a police officer under California Vehicle Code §2800.2 was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), because the conduct criminalized does not necessarily create the risk of harm that characterizes a CIMT. The court concluded by ruling that the petitioner was not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Court Says Individuals with Reinstated Removal Orders and in Withholding-Only Proceedings Are Not Eligible for Bond

The Ninth Circuit held that reinstated removal orders are administratively final, and that the detention of noncitizens subject to reinstated removal orders is governed by INA §241(a), rather than by INA §236(a). Thus, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing. The court noted that its decision creates a circuit split with the Second Circuit’s decision in Guerra v. Shanahan.

Court Says No Rational Basis Between Chronic Alcoholism and a Lack of Good Moral Character

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA decision, finding the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure because he lacked good moral character as a “habitual drunkard.” The court remanded, holding that the petitioner could bring an equal protection challenge because there is no rational basis to classify persons afflicted by chronic alcoholism as innately lacking good moral character.

Entered illegally after a deportation order AND have a 245(i) application? Which controls?

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of the petitioner’s adjustment of status application, finding that the petitioner reasonably relied on Acosta v. Gonzales, which was the law of the circuit in effect at the time he applied to adjust status, but which was later overruled by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder. The court held that the BIA’s decision in Matter of Briones should not be applied retroactively to bar the petitioner’s application, because the petitioner’s reliance interests and the burden that retroactivity would impose on him outweighed the interest in uniform application of the immigration laws.

%d bloggers like this: