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

Ninth Circuit Finds Oregon Attempted Assault Conviction to be Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has determined that Oregon convictions for first third degree assault are crimes of violence. “Oregon courts have explained that attempted first-degree assault under Oregon law requires showing that a defendant took a substantial step toward causing serious physical injury to another.”

The full text of United States v. Chavez-Echeverria can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/25/24-4723.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds that NV Sale of a Controlled Substance Conviction is Indivisible

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada conviction for sale of a controlled substance under Nevada Revised Statute § 453.321(1)(a) is indivisible with respect to the various actus rei criminalized.

The full text of United States v. Casildo can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/31/23-35483.pdf

Ninth Circuit Requires Prejudice to Show Counsel-Related Due Process Violation During Reinstatement

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a non-citizen undergoing the reinstatement of a prior removal order can only show that deprivation of counsel violated his due process rights if he can establish prejudice.

The full text of Verduzco Ruiz v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/01/18-71787.pdf

Ninth Circuit Again Blocks Review of U-Visa Waiver in District Court

The Ninth Circuit has again foreclosed an APA challenge to the denial of waiver under 8 USC 212(d)(14) requested in connection with a U visa, finding that the waiver application is necessarily one committed to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

“In rejecting his constitutional challenge to the INA, we emphasize that we do not decide today whether, or to what extent, Plaintiff can raise his claims in removal proceedings. Nor do we decide whether, if the immigration courts cannot review his claims, such a result would violate the Constitution. What we do decide is that, to the extent Plaintiff has a viable challenge to the discretionary decisions of the immigration authorities, the only place he can advance that claim is in removal proceedings and a subsequent petition for review in the court of appeals.”

The full text of Chairez v. Mayorkas can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/24-4137.pdf

Ninth Circuit Concludes that Honduran Government was Unable or Unwilling to Protect Victim of Gender Violence

The Ninth Circuit has determined that an evidentiary record compels the conclusion that the Honduran government is unable or unwilling to protect a woman from violence perpetrated by her partner, who was also a gang member.

“The IJ observed that did not necessarily suggest the police would do the same if they arrested Oscar after beating Petitioner. Yet the record in this case strongly suggests that if the government took no meaningful action in that instance, when Oscar’s victim was a man, it was even less likely to take meaningful action when the victim was a woman. The conclusion compelled by Petitioner’s testimony concerning the danger she faced from Oscar, his violent outbursts when she sought refuge at church, and his death threats deterring her from reporting him, as well as by the country conditions report documenting uncontrollable violence against women in Honduras, is that an attempt to report would not only have been futile, it would also have been likely to result in further harm to Petitioner. Because the record compels the conclusion that the government of Honduras would be either unable or unwilling to protect Petitioner, this element of the asylum and withholding inquiries is satisfied.”

The full text of Guevara-Serrano v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/20/23-4420.pdf

Ninth Circuit Rejects Per Se Rule that Traffic is Never Exceptional Circumstance

The Ninth Circuit has rejected a per se rule that traffic can never be an exceptional circumstance that excuses missing a hearing in immigration court.

“We have never adopted a rule that traffic (or any other circumstance) is per se unexceptional. And we reject any bright-line rules about what can or cannot qualify as an exceptional circumstance because the statutory test depends on the totality of the circumstances in each petitioner’s case.”

“And more to the point, the fifteen-minute cushion petitioners gave themselves did not cause their failure to appear. Petitioners were two hours late for their hearing, and it was the two major accidents causing a ten-mile backup that caused them to be late. Even if they gave themselves an extra ninety minutes to get to court, they still would have been late because of the severe traffic that morning. Exercising diligence does not mean a petitioner must predict the very ‘extraordinary circumstance’ they contend caused their failure to appear. The BIA must consider petitioners’ diligence based on what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.'“

The full text of Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/02/05/21-304.pdf

Ninth Circuit Certifies Questions about Drug Conviction to CA Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit has certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court: when a defendant is charged with possession of a listed controlled substance under California Health & Safety Code § 11378, must the state prove, and must the jury unanimously agree, that the defendant possessed the actual listed controlled substance, and not an analog of that substance as defined under California Health & Safety Code § 11401? Or may the jury convict if it finds the state has proven the defendant possessed either the actual controlled substance or an analog of that substance, without unanimous agreement as to which?

“If the California Supreme Court concludes that the state may prove a § 11378 charge for possession of a specified listed controlled substance (e.g., methamphetamine) by showing the defendant possessed either the actual specified listed substance or an analog of that substance, then Defendants would prevail. We would conclude that § 11378 is “both overbroad and indivisible” at step two, and “a prior conviction under that statute will never qualify as a predicate . . . offense under the federal sentencing guidelines.” But if the California Supreme Court concludes that the state must prove a § 11378 charge for possession of a specified listed controlled substance by showing the defendant possessed that actual substance and not an analog of that substance, then we will affirm the sentences.”

Thus, the resolution of this question could impact the immigration consequences of many different California drug convictions.

The full text of United States v. Soto can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/08/24-3903.pdf