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

Ninth Circuit Holds Age-Based Social Groups Are Immutable as a Matter of Law

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Mexican mother and her three children who fled after armed men threatened to force the children into drug trafficking and sex trafficking, holding that the BIA erred in finding her proposed social group of "mothers of adolescent children living in Mexico" non-cognizable purely because age changes over time.

The Court held that age-based social groups are immutable as a matter of law, since an applicant cannot alter her age, or a child's age, to escape persecution, and that the relevant age is the applicant's age at the time persecution occurred or is feared. The Court clarified that age-based groups may still fail for lack of particularity or social distinction, but reversed the BIA's categorical rule to the contrary. The Court also held that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review, clear error instead of de novo, to the nexus determination for the petitioner's separate social group of single women targeted by criminal groups, and remanded for the agency to reconsider both issues under the correct standards.

The full text of Garcia Demetrio v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/20/25-991.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds Murder-for-Hire Resulting in Death Is Not Categorically a Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has partly granted a habeas petition filed by a man convicted of hiring a hit man to murder two business associates, holding that his solicitation convictions tied to those killings cannot stand because murder-for-hire resulting in death is not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a).

The Court held that while the death-results element of the murder-for-hire statute likely satisfies the physical force requirement, it lacks any mens rea requirement and can be satisfied by an accidental killing, meaning it does not categorically require the intentional use of force needed to qualify as a crime of violence.

The full text of United States v. Henrikson can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/15/23-2132.pdf

Ninth Circuit Denies Withholding of Removal to Drug Trafficker, Declines to Revisit Chevron-Era Precedent

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Gambian lawful permanent resident convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, holding that his conviction was a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal. The petitioner separately feared persecution in The Gambia based on a fatwa allegedly issued against him after a radio interview in which he described unorthodox religious views.

The Court held that the strong presumption from Matter of Y-L- that drug trafficking aggravated felonies are particularly serious crimes also triggers the regulatory presumption that the person is a danger to the community, without requiring a separate dangerousness finding. The Court declined to overrule its own precedent deferring to that presumption under the now-abrogated Chevron framework, explaining that Loper Bright's overruling of Chevron does not itself unsettle prior decisions that relied on it, under the doctrine of statutory stare decisis.

The full text of Sarr v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/07/24-5264.pdf

Ninth Circuit Grants Reopening Where Prior Counsel Failed to Notify Clients of BIA Decision

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Honduran family after the BIA denied their motion to reopen and reissue its prior decision affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The family's former attorney did not read the BIA's emailed decision for months and failed to timely advise them of the thirty-day deadline to seek judicial review, causing them to miss it entirely.

The Court held that the BIA erred in concluding it lacked authority to consider an ineffective assistance claim based on counsel's failure to advise about proceedings before a different tribunal, reaffirming that the Board has long had discretion to consider such claims. The Court also held that mailing a courtesy copy of the decision directly to the family did not rebut the presumption of prejudice from counsel's error, since it was unreasonable to expect non-English-speaking petitioners with limited education to independently decipher the filing deadline. The case was remanded for the BIA to apply the presumption of prejudice and address the merits of the ineffective assistance claim.

The full text of Menjivar-Ayala v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/09/24-4562.pdf

Ninth Circuit Requires BIA to Treat Motion Based on New Evidence as Motion to Reopen

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review where the BIA treated a motion to reopen as a motion to reconsider. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the BIA was mailed by certified mail before the deadline but was not delivered for forty-two days, and the BIA dismissed the appeal as untimely.

The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen supported by new USPS tracking evidence showing the delay. The Ninth Circuit held that because the motion relied on evidence not before the BIA at the time of dismissal, the BIA was required to treat it as a motion to reopen, subject to the ninety-day deadline. The case was remanded for the BIA to apply the reopening standard to the equitable tolling request.

The full text of Garcia Corrales v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/24/24-6467.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds California Child Cruelty Conviction and Oregon Child Neglect Conviction are Crimes of Child Abuse

The Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent found removable based on a California conviction for cruelty to a child under Penal Code section 273a(a). The Court considered the meaning of the INA’s crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment ground after Loper Bright, without deferring to the BIA under Chevron.

The Court held that the INA provision covers child endangerment and does not require actual injury to the child. It also held that the provision requires at least criminal negligence and conduct creating a substantial risk of physical or mental harm, and that it is not limited to parents or guardians. The Court concluded that California Penal Code section 273a(a) categorically fits within the removability ground.

The Ninth Circuit also denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on Oregon child neglect convictions. The respondent had pleaded guilty after leaving young children home alone for about forty-five minutes, during which a two-year-old left the apartment.

Applying the same framework announced in the consolidated Leon-Briviesca decision, the Court held that Oregon Revised Statutes section 163.545 categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under the INA. The conviction therefore rendered the respondent removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The full text of Leon-Biviesca v. Blanche and Rivera-Mendoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/25/21-70107.pdf

Ninth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Hallucinated Immigration Briefs

The Ninth Circuit has sanctioned immigration attorneys after briefing in an asylum, withholding, and CAT case included nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations, and mischaracterizations of real authority. The Court emphasized that the use of AI is not itself sanctionable, but that signing and filing briefs containing false authorities and unsupported propositions violates counsel’s obligations.

The Court imposed monetary sanctions, suspended the attorneys from Ninth Circuit practice for six months, referred the matter to the California State Bar, and required future Sethi Law Group filings to disclose whether AI was used and to certify that all citations and quotations were personally verified by the signing attorney. The Court also explained that when an attorney discovers a hallucinated citation, simply replacing it without disclosing the fabrication is insufficient.

The full text of Lnu v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Stay of Removal in En Banc Asylum Case

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, has granted a stay of removal to asylum and withholding petitioners while the merits of their petition remain pending. The case concerns the nexus element for asylum and withholding, including the role of Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland in the BIA’s analysis.

The Court concluded that the petitioners satisfied the stay standard under Nken and vacated its earlier denial of a stay. The Court also requested supplemental briefing on whether Rodriguez-Zuniga supports the BIA’s nexus ruling, whether that decision should be overruled, and whether the argument was preserved.

The full text of Rojas-Espinoza v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/09/24-7536.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds English-Language Notice of Address Obligations Satisfies Due Process

The Ninth Circuit has determined that DHS is not constitutionally required to translate a Notice to Appear into a respondent's native language in order to advise the respondent of the obligation to update her address. The petitioner argued that her in absentia removal order should be reopened because the English-language notice did not adequately advise her, in Spanish, that she had to update her address with the immigration court.

The Court rejected that argument, finding that English-language written notice can satisfy due process when it is reasonably calculated to inform the respondent of her obligations. Because the petitioner moved without updating her address, the later hearing notice mailed to her last known address was sufficient.

The full text of Urquia-Yanez v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/05/08/25-1136.pdf

Ninth Circuit Applies Substantial Evidence Review to Persecution Determination

The Ninth Circuit has determined that substantial evidence review applies to the agency's conclusion that undisputed facts do not rise to the level of persecution. The Court explained that, under Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the agency's application of the INA to established facts is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, abrogating any prior Ninth Circuit precedent that may have applied de novo review.

Applying that standard, the Court upheld the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection to a Sikh man from Punjab who supported the Mann Party. The Court found that the record did not compel a conclusion that threats, two beatings, and a one-night police detention amounted to past persecution. The Court also held that the agency reasonably found that the petitioner could relocate within India, and rejected the argument that the agency was required to apply a special Mann Party relocation rule to all Sikh applicants from Punjab.

The full amended text of Singh v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/05/15/24-815.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Marriage Fraud Bar Applies Even Without Filing for Immigration Benefits

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the marriage fraud bar applies when a non-citizen attempts or conspires to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, even if no immigration benefit is ever sought based on that marriage. The court rejected the argument that 8 USC 1154(c)(2) requires the filing of an immigration application or petition, explaining that “if a noncitizen attempts or conspires ‘to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws,’ then the marriage fraud bar applies, full stop. Whether the noncitizen takes any further actions, such as marrying and filing for immigration benefits, is immaterial.”

The Court also determined that USCIS did not violate due process by relying on the non-citizen’s ex-wife’s sworn statement without producing her for cross-examination. Unlike in Ching v. Mayorkas, the ex-wife’s statement was not the only adverse evidence, the petitioners had multiple opportunities to respond, there was a dearth of evidence of the bona fides of the marriage, and the record contained independent evidence that the non-citizen had admitted paying his ex-wife to marry him “in order to get a green card.”

The full text of Hanan v. USCIS can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/27/24-6193.pdf

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Rights of US Citizen when Non-Citizen Spouse is Denied Visa

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a U.S. citizen’s First Amendment rights made be implicated when her non-citizen spouse is denied a visa. “Mandel’s central holding—that the government must offer a facially legitimate and bona fide reason when its inadmissibility determination implicates a U.S. citizen’s First Amendment rights—remains good law.” The court then concluded that “the consular officer’s belief that Sanchez is a member of a known criminal organization is sufficient to establish a facial connection to the statutory ground in question.”

“At no point has the government conceded that Sanchez’s tattoos played any role in the visa denial. Appellants would like us to assume that the tattoos were the true justification due to Sanchez’s lack of a criminal record and the consular officer’s alleged focus on his tattoos during the interview. But we are not privy to the full breadth of information available to the officer, as ‘information provided by law enforcement”’can encompass details not located in a formal record. For us to delve further into the particulars of the officer’s investigation would subvert the purpose of the facially legitimate and bona fide standard—a standard that affords even more deference to the government than rational basis review. In sum, the consular officer cited 3A2 and concluded that there was ‘reason to believe’ Sanchez is a member of a criminal organization after reviewing interview statements, law‑enforcement information, the immigration record, and all other submissions. For the purposes of our limited inquiry, the government has proffered a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”

“Although this case presents some troubling allegations, there is not enough to conclude that the consular officer’s visa denial, which was reviewed by both a supervisor and the Department of State’s Visa Office, was made in bad faith. Appellants again point to the officer’s alleged focus on Sanchez’s tattoos during the interview, the government’s failure to identify a specific gang to which Sanchez belongs, and Sanchez’s lack of a prior criminal record. Greater detail about the basis for the consular officer’s determination would have satisfied our native curiosity, but Appellants have offered no direct evidence that the officer ignored contrary findings or relied on clearly erroneous facts, and we have no license to require further explanation from the State Department. For us to demand greater explanation would improperly interfere with the consular officer’s discretion over visa denials and subvert the design of the consular nonreviewability doctrine.”

The full text of Sanchez Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of State can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/30/23-4205.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Notice of Appeal Insufficiently Specific

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Notice of Appeal that states that an Immigration Judge’s decision was “wrongfully made” was insufficient to put the Board of Immigration Appeals on notice that the appellant was raising a due process claim.

The full text of Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/08/16-70793.pdf

Ninth Circuit finds CA Definition of Rape Matches Aggravated Felony Ground

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that California permits rape through non-physical duress - such as through threatening to release a sex tape - but has determined that the federal definition of rape also includes such non-physical duress.

The full text of United States v. Gonzalez can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/15/23-3532.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to REVIEW Negative Reasonable Fear Determination Absent Challenge to Reinstatement Order

The Ninth Circuit has determined that lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s negative reasonable fear determination related to a non-citizen subject to reinstated removal order, unless the non-citizen is challenging the reinstatement order as well.

The full text of Navarette v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/23/24-2776.pdf