Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel held that petitioner's convictions for indecent exposure under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(1) and under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(2)(b) are not categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, both statutes were indivisible and thus the modified categorical approach was inapplicable. In the absence of a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel remanded for the BIA to consider anew petitioner's request for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. View "Barrera-Lima v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. Under the plain text of the stop-time rule, the panel held that petitioner was not rendered inadmissible by his possession of cocaine because, as a lawful permanent resident, he was not subject to the grounds of inadmissibility. Therefore, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal. The panel acknowledged that its conclusion parted ways with the Fifth Circuit in Calix v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 2015). The panel remanded for the BIA to consider petitioner's application of cancellation of removal on the merits. View "Vu Minh Nguyen v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of deportation after petitioner was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine salt. The panel held that petitioner was deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); petitioner's conviction remained a valid ground of deportation despite its expungement under California Penal Code 1203.4; petitioner was not eligible for waiver of deportation under section 212(c); and the BIA did not err in denying deferral of deportation under the Convention Against Torture. View "Lopez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

A conviction for assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code 245(a)(1), as it was written prior to its amendment in 2011, qualifies as a conviction for a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 16(a). The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry and rejected his collateral attacks on his removal. The panel held that defendant's prior California conviction under section 245(a)(1) required an intentional use of force and was thus a crime of violence. The panel also held that, although the failure to inform defendant that his eligibility for relief could serve as a basis to collaterally attack a removal order, it was not plausible that he would have been granted relief at the time of his removal in this case. View "United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review insofar as it raised due process claims related to the district court's rejection of petitioner's United States citizenship claim. First determining that petitioner had standing to bring the due process and equal protection claims, the panel held that, because a legitimate governmental interest was rationally related to 8 U.S.C. 1433's requirement that citizen parents petition to naturalize their adopted, foreign-born children, section 1433 did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.The panel also held that the district court did not err in ruling that the INS was not deliberately indifferent to whether petitioner's mother's application for his citizenship was processed; and, even if the INS did act with deliberate indifference, petitioner's due process claim failed because he could not demonstrate prejudice. The panel held that the district court correctly concluded that the INS was not deliberately indifferent to petitioner's adult application for citizenship and he could not establish prejudice. Finally, the panel held that the BIA erred in concluding that third-degree escape under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-2502 was a crime of violence and thus an aggravated felony that would make petitioner removable. Accordingly, the panel denied in part, granted in part, and remanded in part the petition for review. View "Dent v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Battery committed with the use of a deadly weapon under Nevada Revised Statute 200.481(2)(e)(1) is a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(a). The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. The panel held that defendant's prior battery conviction under Nevada law qualified as a crime of violence and thus his initial deportation was not unlawful. View "United States v. Guizar-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order declining to extend a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), remedy to an immigrant pursuing lawful permanent resident status. In this case, an ICE Assistant Chief Counsel representing the government intentionally forged and submitted an ostensible government document in an immigration proceeding, which had the effect of barring plaintiff from obtaining lawful permanent resident status, a form of relief to which he was otherwise lawfully entitled. The panel held that a Bivens remedy was available on these narrow and egregious facts because none of the special factors outlined in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017), and other Supreme Court precedent applied. The panel also held that the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel was not entitled to qualified immunity because qualified immunity could not shield an officer from suit when he intentionally submits a forged document in an immigration proceeding in clear violation of 8 U.S.C. 1357(b). View "Lanuza v. Love" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. The panel held that the BIA's determination that witness tampering under Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285 was a crime involving moral turpitude did not warrant deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), because the agency's analysis directly conflicted with circuit precedent, and was inconsistent both internally and with prior BIA decisions.The panel held that Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285 was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because the statute captures conduct that was neither fraudulent nor base, vile, or depraved. Although the statute was divisible, the subsection that formed the basis for petitioner's conviction was likewise not a categorical match for a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Vasquez-Valle v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction of plaintiff's complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Plaintiff sought damages suffered as a result of his removal from the United States in violation of this court's temporary stay of removal.The panel held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) did not deprive it of jurisdiction to hear the FTCA claims of a noncitizen who was wrongfully removed in violation of a court order. Therefore, the district court erred in holding otherwise. The panel held that a decision or action to violate a court order staying removal fell outside of the statute's jurisdiction-stripping reach. Even if the panel agreed that plaintiff's claims tangentially arose from the execution of his removal order, the panel would still retain jurisdiction because the Attorney General lacked the authority, and thus the discretion, to remove him. Finally, the panel rejected the government's alternative argument that plaintiff's claims were barred by the FTCA's foreign country exception. View "Arce v. United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit held that the BIA erred in finding that petitioner's conviction for child abuse and neglect under Nevada law was categorically a "crime of child abuse" under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The panel held that it was bound by this circuit's opinion in Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, No. 14-71742, 2018 WL 3520402 (9th Cir. July 23, 2018), which deferred to the BIA's interpretation, in Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), that the generic crime of child abuse includes acts and omissions that create at least a "reasonable probability" that a child will be harmed. In this case, the Nevada statute was broader than the federal generic crime and there was a realistic probability that Nevada could prosecute conduct under its statute that fell outside the scope of the federal generic crime. Therefore, the panel granted the petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner was removable. View "Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions" on Justia Law