Case law

Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder

580 F.3d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2009

Thus, the emphasis on section 240A(a)(l)’s requirement of being “lawfully admitted” is clearly misplaced. In re Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 234 . … As discussed, section 240A(a) was only intended to clarify *1111 “the type of status necessary to qualify for relief.” Id. (emphasis added).

United States v. Gino Gonzaga Rodriquez, United States of America v. Gino Gonzaga Rodriquez

464 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2006

’s prior drug convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses. … In sum, the totality of the circumstances in this case leads us to conclude that the district court’s finding that Tammi voluntarily consented to the search was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Van Cauwenberghe

934 F.2d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 1991

Therefore, while we clearly have the discretionary authority to dismiss this appeal, there is “no per se requirement of dismissal in [these] ... case[s].” Hussein v. … We have intimated that a third party who establishes a claim to seized property might defeat a defendant’s Rule 41(e) motion for the property’s return. See United States v.

RODRIGUEZ-VALENCIA v. Holder

652 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

To determine whether a conviction qualifies as an aggra- vated felony, we apply the categorical approach articulated in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). Penuliar v. … Accordingly, when Congress added con- victions relating to counterfeiting to the definition of aggra- vated felony, it was well understood and clearly established that the generic crime of counterfeiting extended far beyond

Estate of J. Garcia Gaona, Jr. v. City of Santa Maria

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2020

The district court did not err in finding the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their use of less lethal force because no clearly established law provided “fair warning” that it was unconstitutional. … The officers violated no clearly established law by resorting to deadly force.

Clarence v. Watson v. Woodrow C. Button

235 F.2d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 1956

The burden is on him to show that the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. … White Jr. to qualify him as a director. He had no beneficial interest in the corporation. 2 . This is the rule in most states. See cases collected in Sutter v.

Fregozo v. Holder

576 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2009

It is the government’s burden “to establish clearly and unequivocally [that] the conviction was based on all of the elements of a qualifying predicate offense,” through such documents and other “judicially noticeable facts … , does not establish the factual predicate to support” a determination that the conviction was generic.

Bhupinder Kaur Kharana v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

487 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2007

If the crime of conviction is broader than the generic crime, we employ a “modified categorical” approach to determine whether “the record ... unequivocally establishes] that the [alien] pleaded guilty to all the elements … With respect to the “loss to the victim(s)” ele *1284 ment, however, the statute of conviction clearly criminalizes a broader range of conduct than the generic offense.

Jaswant Lal Shakuntla Lal Rikesh Lal v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

255 F.3d 998 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Lai qualifies for asylum under past Ninth Circuit law construing the humanitarian exception. … We have never required that a petitioner demonstrate ongoing disability to qualify for the Matter of Chen exception. In Vongsakdy v.

Evans v. Budge

201 F. App'x 420 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2006

The state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable.” (citations omitted)). … The phrase “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” "refers to the holdings ... of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.”

American Federation Of Government Employees, Afl-Cio Local 2152 v. Principi

464 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

Because no unfair labor practice under § 7118 was involved in this case, as a practical matter, an appeal from the arbitrator's decision would be immune from any form of substantive agency or judicial review. 21 The VA asserts … Under the doctrine of the last antecedent, qualifying phrases are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding the qualifier and are not to be construed as modifying more remote phrases.

Arizona State Board for Charter Schools v. U.S. Department of Education

464 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2006

A natural reading establishes that only “non-profit institutional day or residential school[s]” are eligible for federal funding under the ESEA and ,the IDEA. … A closer inspection confirms this interpretation as the legislative history lacks any indication that Congress intended, through these amendments, to obviate the earlier-established “nonprofit” qualifier.

Mobassa Boyd v. Anthony C. Newland, Warden

393 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2004

So Batson does not clearly establish a requirement of comparative juror analysis on appeal. … Neither *1016 that rule nor its application here violates clearly established Supreme Court law.

Reihley v. Slocum

76 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 17, 1996

This contention has merit with respect to defendant Dickinson. 1 5 "A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 action if the district court determines that, in light of clearly established principles … established."

United States v. Tullos

249 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

Tullos contends that the district court erred by determining that he did not qualify for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. … We disagree, and conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Tullos did not meet his burden of establishing that he had truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence he had

Barker Bros. v. National Labor Relations Board

328 F.2d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 1964

In our opinion, this is the type of economic pressure, at least with respect to employers operating retail establishments, from which Congress sought to immunize the employer. … There is a fundamental weakness in much legislative history, particularly in floor debates, on which both parties rely, which is clearly apparent here.

Hector Lopez v. P. Swaney

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2018

Viewing the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, Defendants violated clearly established law. Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1090–91. … I would grant qualified immunity to both officers in this case. 2

Jack Ruggles, Jr. v. State of Nevada, Gary Whipple, David Sowder, David Hefner, Janet Garrietty, T.J. Cappaccio, Lou Gregory, Sam McMurray

996 F.2d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 1993

whether the law has been clearly established.... … If the court decides that the law is clearly established, it must then decide whether a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated rights....

The Oregonian Publishing Company v. United States District Court For The District Of Oregon

920 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 6, 1990

Harper, 729 F.2d at 1222 . 17 The Oregonian has established the presence of the first and second factors. … The district court failed to apply these requirements properly and thus clearly erred as a matter of law in making its closure orders.

Kessele Livingston v. Lauri Esslinger

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The district court erred in rejecting the caseworkers’ claim for qualified immunity, because Livingston has not alleged the violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established.1 1 We conclude