The Ninth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Mexican man denied reinstatement of voluntary departure, holding that the BIA committed reviewable legal error by dismissing his appeal on the ground that the record "does not reflect" proof he posted the required voluntary departure bond, even though a DHS receipt confirming payment was already in the administrative record.
The Court held that although the jurisdiction-stripping provisions governing discretionary relief generally bar review of purely factual determinations under Patel v. Garland, those provisions contain an exception for legal questions, and an agency's complete failure to consider dispositive evidence that was squarely in the record is a legal error rather than a mere factual misjudgment. The Court distinguished Patel as involving a genuine credibility or intent determination, whereas here neither party disputed that the bond was paid or that the receipt was in the file, so no factual reweighing was required to identify the BIA's oversight. The Court remanded for the BIA to consider the receipt and reassess reinstatement of voluntary departure, denying the remainder of the petition as to cancellation of removal. A partial dissent argued the BIA's error was factual, not legal, and that treating an obvious factual mistake as a legal error effectively guts Patel's jurisdictional bar.
The full text of Perez-Garcia v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/25/24-1092.pdf