Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20-50228
|
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Hernandez-Garcia
Marine Corps did not violate the Posse Comitatus Act by surveilling defendant north of the California-Mexico border because military assistance to Border Patrol was authorized by the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Aug. 18, 2022 |
19-72779
|
Cordero-Garcia v. Garland
For purposes of the Immigration Nationality Act, dissuading or attempting to dissuade witnesses from reporting crimes under California Penal Code Section 136.1(b)(1) is not an aggravated felony. |
Immigration |
|
B. Moskowitz | Aug. 16, 2022 |
17-73260
|
Ballinas-Lucero v. Garland
Petitioner was not barred from cancellation of removal because the record showed that his convictions were vacated due to legal defects in his pleas, not solely for immigration purposes or for rehabilitative or equitable reasons. |
Immigration |
|
W. Fletcher | Aug. 16, 2022 |
S271265
|
Guardianship of Saul H.
Parents' inability to protect child from substantial risk of gang violence was a sufficient basis to conclude reunification was nonviable for determining eligibility for special immigrant juvenile status. |
Immigration |
|
J. Groban | Aug. 16, 2022 |
C090171
|
People v. Gregor
Sex offender's motion to withdraw his plea under Penal Code Section 1473.7 was denied since denial of his family visa due to his conviction was not an "adverse immigration consequence." |
Immigration |
|
E. Duarte | Aug. 15, 2022 |
21-70547
|
Troncoso-Oviedo v. Garland
Pretrial detention that is not credited toward a defendant's sentence is not confinement "as a result of conviction" that would make an alien ineligible for cancellation of removal. |
Immigration |
|
R. Nelson | Aug. 8, 2022 |
19-72063
|
Perez-Camacho v. Garland
The Bureau of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in concluding that equitable tolling was not available when alien failed to explain why he waited 21 years to seek to reopen his case. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Aug. 2, 2022 |
20-70470
|
Martinez Alquijay v. Garland
Petitioner's request for time extension of his application for asylum was denied because his age, ignorance of the law and English, and stress from fleeing Guatemala were not extraordinary circumstances. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Jul. 28, 2022 |
18-73286
|
Lopez-Luvian v. Garland
Immigration petitioner subject to reinstated order of removal cannot challenge an earlier termination of separate removal proceedings that did not result in a final order of removal. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Jul. 20, 2022 |
20-71042
|
Bravo-Bravo v. Garland
The Board of Immigration appeals lacked any jurisdiction to reopen a reinstated prior order of removal when alien had illegally reentered the country. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Jul. 19, 2022 |
C093084
|
People v. Singh
A Penal Code Section 1473.7 motion to vacate a conviction had the party known of the immigration consequences applies to defendants who were convicted after a trial. |
Immigration |
|
H. Hull | Jul. 18, 2022 |
19-30006
|
U.S. v. Bastide-Hernandez
Failure of a notice to appear to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Immigration |
|
J. Owens | Jul. 12, 2022 |
16-72849
|
Barseghyan v. Garland
Petition for review was granted because three out of the four evidentiary inconsistencies relied upon by the Board of Immigration Appeals were not actually inconsistent. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gould | Jul. 11, 2022 |
19-71750
|
Vega v. Garland
Alien was not eligible for an adjustment of his immigration status because he illegally reentered the United States and was present when the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act became effective. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Jul. 11, 2022 |
17-72212
|
Sarkar v. Garland
Government's motion to administratively close a case because it deemed non-citizen a low enforcement priority was denied because the court's inherent authority to manage its docket would not be served. |
Immigration |
|
D. Forrest | Jul. 5, 2022 |
21-954
|
Biden v. Texas
Government's rescission of a program that returned non-Mexican nationals to Mexico pending removal did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act since the Act granted discretionary authority to return aliens. |
Immigration |
|
J. Roberts | Jul. 1, 2022 |
21-70493
|
Hernandez v. Garland
Non-citizen was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his grant of temporary protected status did not constitute an admission to the United States for purposes of obtaining lawful permanent resident status. |
Immigration |
|
D. Forrest | Jun. 29, 2022 |
20-70158
|
Hernandez v. Garland
Petitioners granted special rule cancellation of removal under Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act Section 203 are barred from pursuing cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(a). |
Immigration |
|
C. Reiss | Jun. 28, 2022 |
21-70093
|
Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals erred by failing to assess petitioner's aggregate risk of being tortured where petitioner posited two alternative theories of why he would be tortured if removed. |
Immigration |
|
M. Friedland | Jun. 27, 2022 |
17-72389
|
Greenwood v. Garland
The Board of Immigration Appeals may rely on a previous adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen a removal order if that earlier finding factually undermines petitioner's new argument. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Jun. 17, 2022 |
21-35023
|
Martinez v. Clark
Determining whether a detained noncitizen is a danger to the community is a fact-intensive "discretionary judgment" that cannot be reviewed by a district court. |
Immigration |
|
P. Bumatay | Jun. 16, 2022 |
17-71367
|
Marquez-Reyes v. Garland
The "encouraged" component of the alien smuggling statute is not facially overbroad under the First Amendment. |
Immigration |
|
E. Miller | Jun. 15, 2022 |
19-896
|
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(a)(6), the government is not required to offer detained noncitizens bond hearings after six months of detention. |
Immigration |
|
S. Sotomayor | Jun. 13, 2022 |
20-322
|
Garland v. Gonzalez
District courts exceeded jurisdiction in awarding injunctive relief to noncitizens because the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived them of jurisdiction to enjoin the operation of certain provisions of the act. |
Immigration |
|
S. Alito | Jun. 13, 2022 |
19-73028
|
Flores Molina v. Garland
Record evidence compelled the conclusion that asylum seeker's past experiences rose to the level of persecution because he was repeatedly forced to flee from his home in the face of death threats. |
Immigration |
|
R. Paez | Jun. 13, 2022 |
20-73583
|
Mendoza-Garcia v. Garland
Oregon first-degree burglary of a dwelling is a categorical match to generic burglary. |
Immigration |
|
J. Choe-Groves | Jun. 10, 2022 |
17-70867
|
Vasquez-Borjas v. Garland
Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his California counterfeiting conviction was a categorical match for the federal crime of forgery and therefore was a crime of moral turpitude. |
Immigration |
|
D. Forrest | Jun. 6, 2022 |
20-72231
|
Olea-Serefina v. Garland
Noncitizen's prior conviction for corporal injury upon a child was a crime-of-violence aggravated felony that made her ineligible for cancellation of removal. |
Immigration |
|
D. Collins | May 20, 2022 |
20-73166
|
Fon v. Garland
The harm asylum seeker suffered and evidence of the country's political and societal turmoil compelled a finding of past persecution. |
Immigration |
|
S. Graber | May 19, 2022 |
20-979
|
Patel v. Garland
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts determined by immigration judge as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 and Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). |
Immigration |
|
A. Barrett | May 17, 2022 |