• 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

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.

Think the Circuit Court has no Jurisdiction to hear the case? Think again.

The Ninth Circuit held that the statutory criminal bar to judicial review, INA §242(a)(2)(C), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to review the denial of a procedural motion, such as a motion for a continuance, that rests on a ground independent of the conviction that triggered the bar. The court denied the petition for review, however, because it found that the Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to continue.

Got illegal Reentry? Got a defense?

The Ninth Circuit reversed the defendant’s conviction for illegal reentry, holding that by asking the defendant to comment on the credibility of a border patrol agent—a key witness against him—then referring to evidence not before the jury to bolster the agent’s testimony, the government deprived the defendant of the fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.

%d bloggers like this: