Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Fernandes v. Holder, No. 07-72415, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that he filed a fraudulent asylum application and was not credible. The court denied the petition on the grounds that 1) the IJ's consideration of petitioner's motion to reopen did not violate the BIA's remand order; and 2) the BIA's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez, No. 09-15214, concerned an action by irrigation districts challenging the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list the steelhead, a type of Pacific salmon, as a threatened species in California's Central Valley. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) Section 1532(16) of the Endangered Species Act did not require that interbreeding organisms be placed in the same distinct population segment; and 2) the government provided an adequate rationale for the change in policy.
Ruiz-Diaz v. US, No. 09-35734, involved an action by a class of alien beneficiaries of special immigrant religious worker visa petitions, and organizations that employ religious workers, who maintained that 8 C.F.R. section 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) was invalid under 8 U.S.C. section 1255(a). The court reversed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that Congress conferred discretion on the Attorney General to devise regulations to implement section 1255(a), and the court could not say that the agency's interpretation was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.
Singh v. Clinton, No. 09-15672, concerned an action challenging the State Department's termination of an immigrant visa registration for failure to file a timely application. The court reversed summary judgment for defendant on the ground that 8 U.S.C. section 1153(g) required notice "to the alien" of eligibility.
In US v. Farias, No. 09-50269, the court reversed defendant's conviction for attempted entry after deportation, holding that defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.
US v. Hunter, No. 09-30246, involved defendant's appeal from the district court's order awarding restitution to two of her former employers based on her mail fraud convictions. The court affirmed on the ground that the employers were directly and proximately harmed by defendant's mail fraud because they paid defendant for the services of a licensed nurse that were never received.
In US v. Langer, No. 09-50399, the court affirmed defendant's cocaine distribution conspiracy sentence, holding that, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that defendant's rap sheet contained errors of fact, and in the absence of a dispute as to the existence of defendant's prior conviction, the rap sheet was sufficiently reliable to justify applying criminal history category II.
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. State of Cal., No. 09-16942, involved an action by Indian tribes claiming a breach of Gaming Compacts between the tribes and California. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part summary judgment for plaintiffs, holding that the limit on licenses in the Compacts exceeded that recognized by California.
In Crittenden v. Ayers, No. 05-99006, a capital habeas matter, the court affirmed in part the denial of petitioner's habeas petition on the ground that the California Supreme Court's rejection of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established law. However, the court reversed in part, holding that, on petitioner's Batson claim, the district court needed to consider the standard articulated in Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010).
Detrich v. Ryan, No. 08-99001, concerned a capital habeas matter. The court reversed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, holding that 1) defense counsel devoted unreasonably little time to penalty phase preparations, failed to seek reasonably available mitigating evidence, and unreasonably failed to enlist the assistance of a mental health expert; and 2) there was a reasonable probability that the sentencing judge would have imposed a sentence less than death had petitioner's counsel obtained and presented an expert evaluation of petitioner's neuropsychological functioning.