Skip to content
Home » 9th circuit » IJ gets Case Remanded in Custody and punished without Trial

IJ gets Case Remanded in Custody and punished without Trial

Reversed and remanded for a new trial, A guide to retrial

immigration lawyers


-Antitrust and Trade Regulation-
Summary judgment in state court action, concluding that there was insufficient evidence presented by plaintiffs to allow a reasonable juror to find a conspiracy to limit supply and raise prices among several gasoline companies, precluded plaintiff’s antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, and district court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.
William O. Gilley Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Company – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 06-56059
Full text

immigration lawyer

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
In determining whether extradition to a foreign country was barred by the statute of limitations, district court properly gave credence to the proceedings of that country and considered only the elapsed time between the date on which the crime occurred and the date foreign authority issued warrant for defendant’s arrest, even if that warrant was not akin to an indictment or information under U.S. law.
Magistrate’s finding of probable cause to extradite defendant on murder charge was not clearly erroneous where sworn statements of eyewitnesses provided ample competent evidence that defendant likely shot and killed victim.
Appellate court will not reweigh evidence on review of magistrate’s factual findings in an extradition case.
Crotte Sainez v. Venables – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-56398
Full text

supreme court

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court erred in rejecting defendant’s guilty plea to firearm charge–which defendant made in exchange for dropping charges relating to his involvement in smuggling undocumented aliens into the United States and holding them for ransom in a stash house–where court failed to state a reason for rejection.
District court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during search of stash house because exigent circumstances supported a warrantless search where smugglers threatened physical harm to hostages if ransom was not paid, and ransom deadline was running out.
United States v. Mancinas-Flores – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-10094
Full text

immigration lawyer

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court’s adoption of a procedure for the taking of pleas en masse to accommodate the enormous number of prosecutions for illegal entry into the United States violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that the court, before accepting a guilty plea, “address the defendant personally” and determine that defendant understood certain specified rights, risks, and consequences, and determine whether plea was voluntary.
Defendants failed to show plain error necessary to reverse their convictions where they failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, they would not have entered the plea.
United States v. Roblero-Solis – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-10396
Full text

immigration lawyer

-Environmental Law-
Plaintiffs–who alleged that they had viewed polar bears and walrus in a specific region, enjoyed doing so, and had plans to return, and that certain regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service threatened imminent, concrete harm to these interests by destroying polar bears and walrus in that specific region, and that those regulations continued to be implemented had standing to challenge the legality of the regulations.
Where the United States Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated five-year regulations under Marine Mammal Protection Act Sec. 101(a)(5) that permit non-lethal “take” of polar bears and Pacific walrus by oil and gas activities in and along the Beaufort Sea on the Northern Coast of Alaska, conditioned upon service’s issuance of a “letter of authorization” to an individual oil and gas operator, facial challenge to the regulations was ripe, and plaintiffs were not required to challenge individual LOAS.
erm “gas and oil exploration, exploration, and production activities” was not too broad to qualify as a specified activity as to which service may allow incidental take of wildlife under MMPA.
Service’s finding that the taking of wildlife pursuant to regulations would have a negligible environmental impact was not arbitrary and capricious where service relied on scientific opinions that the combined effects of oil and gas operations on the weakened physical fitness of polar bears due to climate change was speculative.
Evidence that global warming poses a generalized threat to polar bear populations did not demonstrate that non-lethal takes within a particular industry and during a particular period of time are likely to have significant impact, so service’s “no significant impact” finding under National Environmental Policy Act was not arbitrary and capricious.
NEPA did not require service to prepare environmental impact statement, which regulations require when effects are “highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks,” where service relied on reasonable predictions based on prior data.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-35402
Full text

immigration lawyers

-Immigration Law-
Immigration judge denied petitioner a full and fair hearing where judge unreasonably limited testimony on whether removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to petitioner’s four-year-old child, who was a U.S. citizen, and denied request for a continuance, prejudicing petitioner’s ability to present evidence in support of her application for cancellation of removal.
Rendon v. Holder – filed December 2, 2009

By: Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney