n 2002, the Correo-Ruiz brothers applied for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the INA. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Acosta v. Gonzales, finding that a person who was inadmissible under section 212(a)9)(C)(i)(I) of the iNA for having re-entered the United States without admission after accruing at least one year of unlawful presence could still seek adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the INA.  I In 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision in Matter of Briones, coming to the opposite conclusion as the Ninth Circuit in Acosta.  This came as unwelcome news to the Correo-Ruiz brothers, who had already expended money for legal representation in their immigration process after the decision in Acosta.  In 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, deferring to the Board's decision in Briones, but suggesting that a person who could show detrimental reliance on Acosta might be able to successfully argue against the retroactive effect of Briones and Garfias-Rodriguez.  

Though the court recognized that the Correo-Ruiz brothers could not have filed their adjustment applications in reliance on Acosta (which was decided approximately 4 years after they filed their applications), they may relied on the Acosta decision when deciding to continue to pursue their applications with legal assistance after the Acosta decision and before the Briones decision.  The money spent on this legal assistance could create the necessary detriment to prevent retroactive application of the decision in Briones.

The full text of Correo-Ruiz v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-72126.pdf