Dec 23 2024
9th Cir. 21-1096 Published

VITALIY CHMUKH v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal for a Ukrainian national convicted of possessing a stolen vehicle. The court held that the Washington state statute aligns with the federal definition of an aggravated felony and that the conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime.

Nov 26 2024
2nd Cir. 22-639 Per Curiam

United States v. Davis

The Second Circuit affirmed Andrew Davis's conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, ruling that circumstantial evidence sufficiently linked his girlfriend's cash deposits to his drug trafficking proceeds. The court also rejected ten pro se arguments regarding ineffective assistance, double jeopardy, and sentencing enhancements as meritless, forfeited, or premature.

Aug 15 2024
9th Cir. 22-1910 Published

CLAUDE STEPHEN BENT v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals because the agency mischaracterized a California statute and misapplied equitable tolling standards. The court held that the state court vacated the petitioner's conviction due to a constitutional plea defect, not solely to mitigate immigration consequences.

Aug 11 2023
2nd Cir. 20-1666 Panel Decision

ABDERRAHMANE FARHANE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Abderrahmane Farhane's habeas petition, holding that his counsel was not ineffective for failing to warn him about denaturalization risks. The court ruled that civil denaturalization is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, meaning the Sixth Amendment does not require defense attorneys to advise on such immigration consequences.

Jun 7 2023
9th Cir. 21-298 Published

ANDRES ARIZMENDI-MEDINA v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that an immigration judge violated due process by rigidly enforcing a filing deadline without allowing a window filing. The court found the proceedings fundamentally unfair because the deadline was ambiguous and the judge refused to accept the application while still on the bench.