• 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

Court Says Vehicle Theft Under California Law Is Not a CIMT

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of Almanza-Arenas, which held that a conviction for vehicle theft under California Vehicle Code §10851(a) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The court remanded to the BIA, holding that, because the least of the acts criminalized under §10851(a) is a temporary taking, the statute is overbroad and thus not categorically a CIMT. The court also found that §10851(a) is an indivisible statute under Descamps v. United States.

After 20 years of IIRAIRA – 9th Circuit rules that crime of violence definition is unconstitutionally vague

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded, holding that the language in 18 USC §16(b), which is incorporated into INA §101(a)(43)(F)’s definition of a “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague. The court found that §16(b)’s language suffered from the same indeterminacy the U.S. Supreme Court found in the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) “residual clause” definition of a violent felony in Johnson v. United States, and was thus void for vagueness.

Keep fighting your case

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, which found that the petitioner was inadmissible under INA §212(a)(3)(B) for having engaged in terrorist activity. The court held that the Board erred in failing to apply the clear error standard of review to the Immigration Judge’s finding that the petitioner lacked the “intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals” when he participated in planning an attempted coup against the Philippine government in 1989.

Stop Time rule applies moment NTA is served

The Ninth Circuit upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that the failure of a Notice to Appear (NTA) to specify the date and location of a removal hearing has no effect on the stop-time rule. Accordingly, the court found that the petitioner, who had not accrued the requisite period of continuous physical presence by the time he was served with the NTA in his removal proceeding, was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Get Representation in Asylum Hearings as Court just ruled against Applicant

The Ninth Circuit held that the REAL ID Act permits the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Immigration Judges (IJs) to base their adverse credibility determinations exclusively on background evidence in the record, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. As such, the court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s asylum claims, finding that the BIA and the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which was based solely on a report from Amnesty International, was supported by substantial evidence.

Transgender granted CATS

The Ninth Circuit granted in part the petition for review, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred when it denied the petitioner, a transgender woman from Mexico, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), because it failed to recognize the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, and assumed that recent anti-discrimination laws in Mexico have made life safer for transgender individuals, while ignoring significant evidence of violence targeting them. The court remanded for a grant of CAT relief in light of the petitioner’s evidence of past torture and country conditions, which showed a clear probability of future torture with government acquiescence.

No matter what is your crime, we can try to show why it is not categorically a crime of violence

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of the petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, holding that the Board erred in finding that the petitioner’s California conviction for voluntary manslaughter constituted a categorical “crime of violence” and a per se “particularly serious crime.” The court also reversed the Board’s denial of the petitioner’s claim for deferral of removal under CAT, and remanded for the Board to consider the aggregate risk of torture arising from the petitioner’s family affiliation together with the risk arising from his status as a criminal deportee.

%d bloggers like this: