The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of Ricardo Flores’s motion to vacate his conviction because the trial court wrongly required proof of removal or deportation and failed to recognize that denial of an immigration-benefit application can satisfy section 1473.7.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Eriberto Reyna’s motion to vacate his 1993 murder conviction after independently reviewing the record under People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues.
A federal district court denied a Ukrainian lawful permanent resident’s amended habeas corpus petition, finding his fentanyl possession conviction triggered mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and that he was served with an administrative warrant upon transfer to ICE custody.
A California federal magistrate judge ordered Roberto Gil to explain why his habeas challenge to a completed Florida conviction should not be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed alien-smuggling convictions in an unpublished memorandum, assuming without deciding that errors occurred in admitting a CBP officer’s expert testimony and in the government’s Rule 16 notice, and holding that neither required reversal.
In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a misdemeanor attempted illegal entry conviction, holding that independent evidence satisfied the corpus delicti rule and that a rational factfinder could infer entry and intent.
In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Tzun-Magaña’s motion to dismiss his illegal reentry indictment, holding that even assuming due process violations in his removal proceedings he could not show prejudice because his California robbery conviction made him cat
The Ninth Circuit denied a Nigerian citizen’s petition for review of a BIA order dismissing her appeal from an IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, holding it had jurisdiction over legal questions but not factual corroboration challenges, and that the wire fraud cons
Following the California Supreme Court’s reversal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of Angela Hernandez’s Penal Code section 1473.7 motion and directed the trial court to grant the motion, vacate her convictions, and conduct further proceedings consistent with the S
A California federal court ordered a bond hearing because a prior assault conviction did not trigger mandatory immigration detention absent the corresponding inadmissibility charge.
An Eastern District court ordered a new immigration bond hearing because an unproven misdemeanor charge and a misread no-contest plea could not sustain dangerousness.
The California Supreme Court reversed and directed the trial court to grant the motion, vacate the convictions, and conduct further proceedings. Counsel’s generalized and inaccurate advice did not give Hernandez the concrete understanding needed to make an informed plea decision.
The Ninth Circuit remanded asylum and cancellation issues because immigration adjudicators relied on non-elements of the conviction and failed to address material evidence of responsibility.
The agency permissibly treated a California DUI involving severe intoxication and an accessible loaded firearm as a particularly serious crime.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the statutory good-moral-character bar because the petitioner served more than 180 days in custody as a result of a DUI conviction.
The Ninth Circuit held that Oregon felony assault committed in front of a household child categorically qualifies as a removable child-abuse offense.
In its first post-Loper Bright interpretation of the federal immigration removal ground for crimes of child abuse, the Ninth Circuit holds that the statute covers child endangerment, requires criminal negligence mens rea, and applies regardless of whether the defendant is the child’s parent —
The Ninth Circuit granted Chanh Huy Luong’s petition for review and remanded to the BIA, holding that equitable tolling diligence must be measured from when the petitioner actually faced imminent removal risk — not from a 1992 removal order that was unenforceable for decades — and that the BIA
The Ninth Circuit held that a California conviction for assault with a firearm under Penal Code § 245(a)(2) is not a deportable aggravated felony, vacating a removal order and signaling that thousands of similarly situated non-citizens may have grounds for relief.
Ninth Circuit affirms the Central District of California’s refusal to dismiss an illegal reentry charge under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), holding that even assuming ineffective immigration counsel, the defendant’s extensive criminal record and lack of rehabilitation made it implausible that he w
Fourth District grants Penal Code section 1473.7 relief where defense counsel failed to recognize and pursue an immigration-safe plea after Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Lynch opened the door to one.