Case Explained: SARR V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

The Ninth Circuit denied Sulayman Sarr’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. The court held that Sarr’s federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine constituted a “particularly serious crime” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), rendering him ineligible for relief because he was also deemed a danger to the community. The panel applied the Attorney General’s precedent in *Matter of Y-L-*, which establishes a strong presumption that drug trafficking aggravated felonies are particularly serious crimes, and relied on its prior binding decision in *Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales*. The court rejected Sarr’s argument that the statute required a separate, individualized determination of dangerousness distinct from the “particularly serious crime” finding, ruling that under *Y-L-* and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2), the presumption of particular seriousness automatically triggers the statutory presumption that the alien is a danger to the community. Furthermore, the court declined to overrule *Miguel-Miguel* despite the Supreme Court’s decision in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* abrogating *Chevron* deference, explaining that while the interpretive methodology had changed, the holding of *Miguel-Miguel* remains subject to statutory stare decisis and is not clearly irreconcilable with *Loper Bright*. The court also rejected Sarr’s constitutional avoidance argument regarding vagueness, noting it was previously addressed and rejected in *Miguel-Miguel*. As a practical consequence, the petition for review is denied, and the BIA’s order of removal stands. Sarr remains ineligible for withholding of removal based on his drug trafficking conviction.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.