U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

Sometimes the law is technical and cruel, and sometimes the law is technical and correct. Most people will probably come down on the latter side of that when it comes to the technical application of the law in the Adil Elmakhzoumi v. Sessions case.

In that matter, an immigrant seeking naturalization was rejected because of a prior conviction for sodomy without consent. On appeal, he argued that the law technically prohibited the naturalization of individuals with rape convictions, not sodomy without consent convictions. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and found that the definition of rape included sodomy without consent.

A recent case decided by the Ninth Circuit has been causing a stir, simply for reaffirming what's already well established, though resoundingly un-liked, under the law: Accompanied minors facing deportation do not have the right to an attorney provided by the government.

In addition to that holding, the Ninth Circuit also rejected the notion that an immigration judge is required to advise of all possible eligibilities for benefits. Rather, the court explained that only the benefits that the record clearly shows an alien is eligible for are required to be advised.

After President Trump decided to end DACA, challenges were brought almost immediately as the potential harm for the "dreamers" was imminent. Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as one of the first federal court judges to hear a challenge, issued a preliminary injunction requiring the federal government to revive part of DACA while the lawsuit weaves its way through the court.

The injunction prohibits the government from ending the program for current dreamers, and requires it to accept renewal applications. However, the injunction does permit the government to refuse to accept new applications. Also, the injunction does not prevent the government from denying reentry into the country if a dreamer leaves.

In the latest chapter in the Trump travel ban saga, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has partially lifted the preliminary injunction issued by the federal district court in Hawaii. After Judge Watson issued the order, the feds appealed and filed for an emergency appeal regarding the preliminary injunction shutting down the travel ban as to the six Muslim majority nations it named.

The Ninth Circuit limited the preliminary injunction only to those foreign nationals with bona fide ties to the United States. For individuals, this means family members extending out as far as grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and even siblings-in-law. For businesses, there must be a formal, documented relationship that was not formed for the purpose of evading the travel ban.

A three-judge panel of Ninth Circuit justices heard arguments this week in the DACA decision-making document discovery debacle. And though the feds were hot from a recent Second Circuit win, the Ninth Circuit panel did not hold back when it came to the questions.

After Judge Alsup of California's federal Northern District Court ruled that the administration would have to produce more documents, the Trump administration appealed. Fortunately for the White House and DHS, the order requiring the probably huge document production has been stayed pending the resolution of this appeal. This could buy the Trump administration quite a bit of time as the justices seemed to have rather different thoughts on the matter based on the questions they asked.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will, undoubtedly, be getting ready to hear the appeal of travel ban 3.0 which was just temporarily blocked by the federal district court in Hawaii. Notably, Judge Derrick Watson, the same judge that blocked travel ban 2.0, issued the order in this case as well.

Unlike the prior bans, the newest iteration of the executive order imposed a permanent ban on immigration and visitors from six Muslim majority nations, as well as North Korea and Venezuela. Interestingly, there are barely any visitors from North Korea, and the restriction on Venezuela only applied to certain government officials from the country. Even more interestingly, Judge Watson only issued an injunction as to the six Muslim majority nations and allowed it to move forward as to North Korea and Venezuela.

In a class action filed against Jeff Sessions, ICE, and other government officials, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the class of immigrant detainees that were denied a fair shake at bond.

The class of immigrant detainees successfully obtained a preliminary injunction requiring immigration court judges to consider a detainees financial ability to pay bond before setting the amount. Additionally, if the detainee is found to be unable to pay, alternatives should be assessed, such as ankle monitoring. The government not only appealed the granting of the injunction, but also appealed their unsuccessful motion to dismiss.

Two weeks ago, a district court in Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order, barring the implementation of President Trump's most recent travel ban while the state contested its constitutionality. Now that bar is much less temporary. Yesterday, Judge Derrick Watson agreed to convert that TRO into a preliminary injunction, one that will continue to block the rollout of Trump's ban for the foreseeable future.

That means it's aloha to the TRO and aloha to a longer-lasting PI.

A three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit upheld an order blocking President Trump's first travel ban last month. The administration subsequently reissued a new executive order replacing the first and voluntarily dismissed its appeal to the earlier injunction. That should be the end of that debate, right?

Not exactly. One Ninth Circuit judge wanted the court to rehear the case en banc and vacate the panel opinion, despite the dismissal. Last week, the Ninth declined. But in doing so, the judges revealed a sharp split in the circuit.

President Trump's most recent travel ban was halted yesterday evening by a federal judge in Hawaii, just hours before it was scheduled to go into effect. The executive order would have temporarily halted travel and immigration from six majority-Muslim nations, while stopping refugee resettlement generally.

In a harshly worded ruling, Judge Derrick K. Watson halted enforcement of the ban nationwide, saying that any "reasonable, objective observer" would recognize the order as disfavoring Islam, "in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose".