For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Enewsletter Sign-up
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Padilla Cuenca v. Barr
8 U.S.C. Section 1231(a)(5), which empowers an immigration officer to reinstate a prior removal order, permanently bars reopening of the prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a(c)(7). 		Immigration 9th Nov. 14, 2019
Diaz Martinez v. Barr
Premature pro se petitions to the 9th Circuit can be cured by ripening once the BIA issues a subsequent and final decision. 		Immigration 9th Oct. 31, 2019
Man v. Barr
In removal proceedings commenced against noncitizen after non-citizen has already entered country, Immigration Judge lacks authority to grant non-citizen U visa waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii). 		Immigration 9th Oct. 25, 2019
Cruz Pleitez v. Barr
'Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft' did not extend to the circumstances presented here, and notice provided to petitioner was constitutionally sufficient under 'Mathews v. Eldridge'. 		Immigration 9th Sep. 19, 2019
Mu v. Barr
Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1186b, any alien, including the alien principal and the alien beneficiaries, whose permanent resident status is terminated may request a review in a removal proceeding. 		Immigration 9th Sep. 5, 2019
Poursina v. USCIS
Decision to grant or to refuse a national-interest waiver in order to seek a permanent employment-based visa comes within 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)'s jurisdictional bar. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 29, 2019
Singh v. Barr
Record did not compel conclusion that Punjabi police persecuted petitioner on account of his imputed political opinion; thus, his asylum claim failed. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 28, 2019
Pleitez-Lopez v. Barr
Denial of a continuance for not updating fingerprints is an abuse of discretion if the immigrant defendant reasonably relied on his lawyer's advice that resubmitting his fingerprints was unnecessary. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 26, 2019
Zuniga v. Barr
Petitioner had right to counsel in reasonable fear review proceedings initiated under 8 U.S.C. Section 1228, and Immigration Judge failed to obtain valid waiver of that right. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 21, 2019
Flores v. Barr
Because district court's opinion in its order enforcing 'Flores' Agreement did not modify that agreement, court lacked jurisdiction over appeal. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 16, 2019
Gonzalez Romo v. Barr
A resident alien is inadmissible to re-enter the United States if convicted of a crime under 8 U.S.C. section 1101, including solicitation to possess marijuana for sale. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 15, 2019
Janjua v. Neufeld
Because issue of whether appellant was inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds was not raised, contested, and submitted for determination at his asylum proceeding, it was not actually litigated; thus, issue preclusion did not apply. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 12, 2019
Flores-Vega v. Barr
Petitioner committed crime of violence supporting removability, and although the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard, petitioner failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture protection. 		Immigration 9th Aug. 5, 2019
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Martinez-Hernandez
California Penal Code Section 211 robbery qualifies as a generic theft offense under 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G), and thus is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 		Immigration 9th Jul. 26, 2019
Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr
Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of the interplay between 8 U.S.C. Sections 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 1229b(b)(1)(C) was reasonable and consistent with the statutory language, so its denial of petitioner's appeal must be accepted. 		Immigration 9th Jul. 24, 2019
Flores v. Barr
To show prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner only needs to show plausible grounds for relief and need not substantially support his claim in his motion to reopen. 		Immigration 9th Jul. 19, 2019
Marinelarena v. Sessions
California conviction for conspiracy to sell and transport controlled substance was ambiguous as to whether it constituted controlled substance offense under federal law; thus, petitioner was not ineligible for cancellation of removal. 		Immigration 9th Jul. 19, 2019
Menendez-Gonzalez v. Barr
Court lacks jurisdiction to review decision by Board of Immigration Appeals not to exercise its 'sua sponte' authority to reopen removal proceedings except when reviewing reasoning behind decisions for legal or constitutional error. 		Immigration 9th Jul. 12, 2019
Felipe Betansos v. William Barr
Indecent exposure is a crime of moral turpitude under Penal Code Section 314(1) and may retroactively be applied to removal proceedings with the Board of Immigration Appeals. 		Immigration 9th Jul. 8, 2019
Perez Cruz v. Barr
Because government used search warrant as pretext to arrest nearly 200 undocumented workers, 'Michigan v. Summers' justification for bypassing Fourth Amendment's traditional protections disappeared. 		Immigration 9th Jun. 14, 2019
Torres v. Barr
Petitioner failed to succeed on challenging removal under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (a)(6)(A)(i) due to lack of valid entry document and continuous presence in the U.S. 		Immigration 9th Jun. 13, 2019
Amended Opinion: Aguirre Barbosa v. Barr
Under the theft framework, a violation of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 164.395, a crime of robbery in the third degree, is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. 		Immigration 9th Jun. 7, 2019
Guan v. Barr
The Board of Immigration Appeals failed to show proper consideration of all factors when denying appellant relief under the Convention Against Torture; thus, the petition is granted. 		Immigration 9th May 31, 2019
Honcharov v. Barr
Board of Immigration Appeals did not err when it declined to consider petitioner's proposed particular social groups that were raised for the first time on appeal. 		Immigration 9th May 30, 2019
Lorenzo Lopez v. Barr
Notice to Appear did not contain time and place of removal proceedings; thus, Notice to Appear was defective and did not stop time under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229(a). 		Immigration 9th May 23, 2019
Jose Alanniz v. William Barr
Petitioner's parole did not qualify as an 'admission' under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(a), and petitioner's conviction within seven years of obtaining lawful permanent resident status made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. 		Immigration 9th May 21, 2019
Modification: People v. Salcido
The Immigration Consultant Act was not preempted by Department of Homeland Security regulations 8 C.F.R. Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 292.1 (2018) as to defendant. 		Immigration 4DCA/2 May 15, 2019
Prado v. Barr
Although appellant had her conviction, which deemed her removable, reduced to misdemeanor under California's Proposition 64, she remained removable under immigration law because it was reclassified for rehabilitative purposes. 		Immigration 9th May 13, 2019
Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan
Applicants for admission who are placed in regular removal proceedings under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) may be returned to the contiguous territory from which they arrived under Section 1225(b)(2)(C); thus, stay of preliminary injunction granted. 		Immigration 9th May 9, 2019
People v. Salcido
The Immigration Consultant Act was not preempted by Department of Homeland Security regulations 8 C.F.R. Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 292.1 (2018) as to defendant. 		Immigration 4DCA/2 May 6, 2019
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.