Ninth Circuit Holds Thuraissigiam Does Not Strip Due Process Protections From Asylum Seekers Detained Far From the Border

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court's denial of the government's motion to dismiss a long-running class action brought by asylum seekers subject to mandatory detention under the expedited removal statute, holding on interlocutory appeal that the court has jurisdiction over the class's constitutional challenge and that Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam does not eliminate their due process rights. The certified class consists of noncitizens who entered without inspection, were placed in expedited removal, and established credible fear of persecution or torture, but who remain subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) without any opportunity for a bond hearing — a population DHS substantially expanded in January 2025 by designating virtually any inadmissible noncitizen apprehended anywhere in the country within two years of entry as subject to expedited removal.

On jurisdiction, the panel held that none of the four subsections of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) barred the district court from hearing the case, since the class challenged the constitutionality of the detention statute itself rather than any individual removal order, determination, or application of the statute to a particular case. On the merits of appealability, the court rejected the government's argument that Thuraissigiam forecloses the claim entirely. Writing for the majority, Judge Berzon distinguished Thuraissigiam, which involved a noncitizen apprehended 25 yards from the border moments after crossing, as limited to individuals at the "threshold of initial entry." The class here includes people apprehended tens or hundreds of miles from the border, months or up to two years after entry — well outside that narrow category. The court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that the Due Process Clause protects all persons in the United States regardless of immigration status and traced the distinction between the government's broad power over admission decisions and the much more constrained, centuries-old limits on its power to detain. Judge Friedland concurred in the judgment on the narrower ground that the class definition alone placed its members outside Thuraissigiam's scope, without reaching the admission-versus-detention analysis.

The full text of Padilla v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/21/24-2801.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds BIA's Failure to Consider Dispositive Evidence Is Reviewable Legal Error

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

Ninth Circuit Holds Jurisdiction-Stripping Bar for CNMI Long-Term Resident Status Extends to USCIS Denials

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, of a challenge brought by a long-term Northern Mariana Islands resident to USCIS's denial of his application for NM-1 status, a special immigration status created for CNMI residents left without lawful status after federal immigration law was extended to the territory. The petitioner argued that the statute's jurisdiction-stripping provision, which bars review of "any decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security" on an NM-1 application, applies only to decisions made by the Secretary personally, not to USCIS acting under delegated authority.

The Court rejected that argument, holding that because the petitioner conceded the Secretary validly delegated his NM-1 adjudicatory authority to USCIS, a decision by USCIS is functionally a decision of the Secretary for purposes of both the statute's grant of adjudicatory authority and its bar on judicial review. The Court found this reading reinforced by the Supreme Court's and every other circuit's consistent, if largely unstated, assumption that similarly worded jurisdiction-stripping provisions naming only an agency head extend to decisions made by that official's delegates, and held that because the statutory text was unambiguous, the general presumption favoring judicial review of agency action did not apply.

The full text of Barman v. United States can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/24-464.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds the Persecutor Bar Contains No Implied Duress Defense

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man denied special rule cancellation of removal after evidence showed he had served in a Salvadoran army battalion linked to civil war-era atrocities, holding that the statutory persecutor bar contains no implied defense for those who assisted in persecution under duress.

Giving only limited weight to the Attorney General's own interpretation given its inconsistent history on the question, the Court nonetheless independently concluded that the ordinary meanings of "assisted" and "otherwise participated" encompass involuntary conduct, and that Congress's explicit use of "voluntarily" in numerous neighboring INA provisions, but not in the persecutor bar, confirms the omission was intentional. The Court held that international refugee law materials cited by the petitioner and amici showed a duress defense is a possible and sensible reading, but not one Congress actually wrote into the statute, and it denied the petition based on the immigration judge's unchallenged finding that the petitioner was not credible.

The full text of Perez-Castillo v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/08/21-70087.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Parole for Waitlisted U-Visa Petitioners Is Discretionary, Not Mandatory

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed in large part the dismissal of claims brought by more than 150 U-visa petitioners against USCIS, holding that the regulation governing the U-visa waiting list gives the agency discretion, not a mandatory duty, to grant advance parole to domestic petitioners who have already received deferred action.  However, the Court held the district court erred in rejecting, without full consideration, the alternative injury theories of petitioners whose petitions had merely been deemed "bona fide" rather than placed on the formal waiting list, and remanded for further proceedings on whether those petitioners have standing to challenge delays in obtaining a full waitlist determination.

The full text of U Visa Appellants v. Director, USCIS can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/24-6824.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds In Absentia Order Violated Due Process Where

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Mexican man ordered removed in absentia after the government's only hearing notice was mailed to a residential address his relatives provided on a bond form asking where he would "reside," not his mailing address, and the notice was returned undeliverable.

The Court held that the government violated due process by relying on an address obtained by asking the wrong person the wrong question, and by taking no further steps after the notice came back undeliverable, particularly where the petitioner's sworn, uncontradicted statement said he had told the court his address to receive notices. The Court found additional practicable alternatives were obviously available, such as calling the phone number on the bond form, and remanded without need for further factfinding. A dissenting judge argued the record did not actually show the petitioner gave the government a correct mailing address and would have remanded to the agency to determine in the first instance what alternative notice steps were practicable.

The full text of Meza Medina v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/18/20-70017.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Noncitizen Must Be Allowed to Testify Before Being Bound by Counsel's Pleading Admission

The Ninth Circuit has granted in part a petition for review filed by a Mexican man whose attorney's written pleading admitted that he entered the country without inspection, holding that the agency abused its discretion by refusing to let him testify that the admission was factually incorrect before denying his motion to amend the pleading.

The Court held that under BIA and circuit precedent, a noncitizen may withdraw a formal attorney admission by proving it untrue, and that the immigration judge's summary denial of the motion to amend, without allowing any testimony on the point, deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to make that showing. The Court also held the BIA impermissibly usurped the immigration judge's factfinding role by independently concluding, based on a cold record, that the petitioner's account conflicted with other evidence, and remanded for the immigration judge to hear live testimony and resolve the credibility question in the first instance.

The full text of Urias-Gaxiola v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/02/22-1474.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Agency Cannot Demand Corroboration for a Credible Motion to Reopen an In Absentia Order

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan man ordered removed in absentia after arriving five minutes late to his hearing because of a flat tire, holding that the agency erred by requiring him to corroborate his account with documentary evidence and by faulting him for not submitting a formal affidavit.

The Court held that pro se petitioners need not submit a formal affidavit, and that because motions to reopen are decided without a hearing, the agency must accept a petitioner's account as true unless it is inherently unbelievable, without requiring independent corroboration. The Court remanded for the agency to reconsider the motion under the correct evidentiary standard.

The full text of Trigueros Quizar v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/04/24-4847.pdf

Ninth Circuit Reverses Adverse Credibility Finding Rooted in Translation Difficulties

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by an Angolan opposition-party activist and his family, holding that the agency's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it rested on trivial inconsistencies and disjointed testimony attributable to translation difficulties rather than any lack of veracity.

The Court held that minor variations in describing the exact location of an injury sustained during a chaotic police attack, an ambiguous asylum-application phrase that did not actually contradict later testimony, and apparent nonresponsiveness that instead reflected the petitioner's evident confusion amid garbled interpretation could not support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also held the agency committed legal error in denying CAT relief by overlooking country-conditions evidence tying the petitioner's political party membership to a particularized risk of torture and by failing to recognize that his family's months spent in hiding did not show a viable option for internal relocation.

The full text of Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/24-5472.pdf

Ninth Circuit Rejects "Quantitative Evidence" Requirement for CAT Claims

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran man seeking to reopen proceedings to submit new evidence of torture under El Salvador's "state of exception," holding that the BIA erred by effectively requiring him to produce statistical or quantitative evidence of his risk of torture rather than considering all relevant evidence as the CAT regulations require.

The Court held that CAT's implementing regulations direct the agency to consider all evidence relevant to future torture, including credible testimony, expert reports, and country-conditions evidence, and that requiring quantitative proof imposes a nearly insurmountable burden given that repressive governments have strong incentives to suppress reliable torture statistics. The Court also held the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to two of the petitioner's three expert reports, and that his individualized evidence, including his tattoos, criminal history, and rival-gang associations, compelled the conclusion that he showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing eligibility for CAT protection in a reopened proceeding.

The full text of Parada Calderon v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/25-2204.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Mis-Mailed Notice of DHS's Appeals Violated Detained Noncitizen's Due Process Rights

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Jamaican man twice granted withholding of removal by an immigration judge, holding that his due process rights were violated when the BIA mailed notice of two separate DHS appeals to detention addresses that DHS itself had informed the agency were incorrect, excluding him entirely from both appellate proceedings.

The Court held that once DHS notifies the BIA that a detained noncitizen's location differs from the address used for mailing, the government's failure to take any additional reasonable steps to locate him renders the notice constitutionally inadequate, and that the petitioner was prejudiced because he never had the chance to argue that his misdemeanor marijuana conviction was not categorically a drug-trafficking aggravated felony under the categorical approach.

The full text of Jacques v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/23-3015.pdf

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms That the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule Conflicts With the Asylum Statute

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan family denied asylum under the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule, which presumed them ineligible for asylum because they entered the United States between ports of entry, holding that the Rule conflicts with the statutory guarantee that noncitizens may apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry.

Reaffirming its decisions in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden and East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Garland, the Court held that conditioning asylum eligibility, rather than merely the exercise of discretion, on whether a noncitizen entered at a port of entry renders the statutory right to apply for asylum a dead letter, and that the Rule's narrow exceptions for parole, port-of-entry appointments, or a denial of protection in a transit country do not cure this conflict because each exception is itself legally invalid or practically illusory. The Court also held the agency committed legal error by failing to apply the circuit's complete two-part framework for analyzing mixed-motive persecution claims and remanded for the agency to reconsider whether gang violence against the family was centrally motivated by their status as taxi business owners who resisted extortion.

The full text of Garcia Morales v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/31/25-1760.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Oregon's Child Sexual-Display Offense Is a Categorical Crime of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident removable for a conviction under Oregon's statute criminalizing using a child in a display of sexually explicit content, holding the offense is categorically a crime of child abuse under the same framework applied the same day in a companion California case.

The Court held Oregon courts have consistently required a mens rea of intent or knowledge for the offense, and that the actus reus categorically creates a likelihood of physical or emotional harm to the child regardless of the age gap between defendant and victim or whether physical touching occurred, distinguishing the petitioner's reliance on a narrower California statute previously found not to qualify.

The full text of Gonzalez-Godinez v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/19-71322.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds California Minor-Seduction Offense Is a Categorical Crime of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a conviction for distributing harmful matter to a minor for purposes of seduction, holding the offense categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse under the framework recently announced in Leon-Briviesca v. Blanche.

The Court rejected each of the petitioner's overbreadth arguments, holding that California law treats such conduct as inherently harmful to minors regardless of actual injury, that the statute's "harmful matter" requirement forecloses any realistic probability of prosecuting purely consensual communications between older minors, and that the petitioner identified no realistic probability the statute is applied where the purported minor victim is actually an adult or never received the communication.

The full text of Adame Garcia v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/16-71147.pdf

Ninth Circuit Denies Relief to Former Police Officer, Judges Urge En Banc Review of Nexus Rule

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a former Salvadoran police officer threatened by an MS-13 leader for interfering with gang activity, holding that under circuit precedent only threats received after he left the police force are relevant to whether he was targeted on account of his status as a "former" officer, and that no such post-departure threats occurred.

Both members of the panel wrote separately to criticize the rule they felt bound to apply. One judge called it illogical that a petitioner explicitly told to quit the police and leave the country cannot rely on the very threats that drove him to comply, and the other urged the full court to rehear the case en banc to adopt a more nuanced nexus test recognizing that a former officer's status is often inseparable from the actions he took while serving.

The full text of Gonzalez-Argueta v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/13/25-557.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Oregon Convictions to be Violent Felonies

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed an Armed Career Criminal Act sentence, finding that the defendant's Oregon third-degree assault and strangulation convictions were violent felonies under the categorical approach and rejecting arguments that the assault statute's accomplice-liability provisions or its "extensively intertwined" doctrine swept in non-forceful conduct.

The full text of United States v. Patterson can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/27/22-30088.pdf

Ninth Circuit Overrules Precedent Treating California Domestic Violence Battery as a Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has vacated a sentence enhanced under the career-offender Sentencing Guideline based on two prior convictions for inflicting corporal injury on a domestic partner under California Penal Code § 273.5, holding that the offense no longer categorically qualifies as a crime of violence.

Applying Borden v. United States and its own recent en banc decision in United States v. Gomez, the Court held that § 273.5 requires only the intent to commit the assaultive act, not intent or knowledge that force be directed at another person, and therefore does not satisfy the requirement of a mens rea greater than recklessness. The Court expressly overruled its prior precedent holding § 273.5 categorically a crime of violence as clearly irreconcilable with intervening authority and remanded for resentencing.

The full text of United States v. Lopez can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/28/24-3268.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Unadmitted Aliens in the Interior Are Not Subject to Mandatory Border Detention

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment for a certified class of detained noncitizens in Western Washington, holding that unadmitted aliens apprehended in the interior of the United States are not subject to mandatory, bondless detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and instead remain eligible for discretionary release on bond under § 1226(a).

The Court held that the traditional, thirty-year understanding of § 1225(b)(2)(A) as limited to aliens seeking entry at the border finds greater support in the statute's text, structure, and history than the government's 2025 reinterpretation, which would render the phrase "seeking admission" superfluous and sits in tension with the Court's own precedent in Torres v. Barr. The Court joined the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting the government's position, deepening a circuit split with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, over a dissent that would have deferred to the government's textual reading.

The full text of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/30/25-6842.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Oregon Assault Committed in a Child's Presence Is a Crime of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a lawful permanent resident found removable for a felony assault conviction based on battering his wife in front of their minor children, holding that Oregon's enhanced fourth-degree assault statute is divisible and that his particular conviction matches the federal removability ground for a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

Applying the modified categorical approach, the Court held that Oregon law requires the jury to unanimously find, as a distinct element, that the assault was committed in the immediate presence of or witnessed by a minor child, and that the petitioner's indictment and plea agreement confirmed he was convicted under that provision. The Court held that assaulting someone in a child's immediate presence places the child in real danger of bodily or mental harm and that Oregon's default criminal-negligence standard satisfies the minimum mens rea required, making the conviction a categorical match.

The full text of Diaz-Boyzo v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/23/17-72894.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Child Who Turns 21 During BIA Appeal Is No Longer a Qualifying Relative

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican father seeking cancellation of removal, holding that his son, who was 20 years old when the immigration judge denied relief but turned 21 while the case was on appeal to the BIA, could no longer be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the hardship analysis.

The Court held that the cancellation of removal statute requires the agency to assess qualifying relatives on a continuing basis up through whichever body issues the final decision, since the statute asks whether removal "would result" in hardship and thus calls for a prediction based on the most current information available. Because the statute contains no aging-out protection comparable to the one Congress created elsewhere in the INA, the Court held the BIA correctly declined to consider hardship to the petitioner's son and, applying substantial evidence review, upheld the agency's finding that hardship to the petitioner's remaining qualifying relatives did not rise to the exceptional and extremely unusual level required.

The full text of Torres-Casas v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/22/25-172.pdf