Although we have discontinued immigration cases of the 9th Circuit because of volume, a review will confirm the usual bias of the liberal court. A few samples will illustrate this statement.
In Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128 (2015) Justice Scalia discusses Constitutional law and the case of an Afghan woman citizen living in the United States seeking a passport for her husband, a former Taliban active. According to her, she is entitled to live with him as husband and wife. A woman seeking entry for her husband? Why doesn’t he apply? The dissent in Kerry is legal mush about the goodness of marriage and family, allegedly protected by due process and foreign law. The 9th Circuit had agreed with that “reasoning” but the Supreme Court reversed. What foreign law is the dissenting Supreme Court judge citing?
Reyes Mata v. Lynch,135 S.Ct. 2150 (2015). Immigration law is statutorily bound and complicated but federal courts can review BIA decisions “regardless of their reasoning.” That rule is not a 9th Circuit decision but cited by it in Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). The immigration judge must treat the applicant for admission as “credible in the absence of explicit adverse credibility finding.”
The dissent in Reyes Mata cites the demeanor and conduct of the applicant far differently. The majority decision ignores the trial record, other witnesses, the evidence and the personal opinion of the credibility of all witnesses. The author of the majority opinion was probably not written by a trial judge.
Calderon-Rodriguez v. Sessions 878 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.2018). In this case the immigration judge failed to ensure the Dept. of Home Security provided the court with relevant materials regarding respondent’s competency. A Brady rule in an immigration court.
Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 733 (9th Cir.2018). Carjacking is not a crime of violence under the federal statute as is a section under the California Penal Code.
Song v. Sessions, 882 F.3d (9th Cir. 2018). A refugee in California had disagreed with the Chinese government over their building of business premises that interfered with his property in China. Nothing more than a civil dispute and not evidence for persecution in support of a petition for asylum. Somehow this protected political view satisfied asylum in the U.S.
U.S. v Rodriguez 880 F.3d 1511 (9th Cir. 2018). Defendant was convicted by a jury of transporting an illegal alien for financial gain. On his appeal he objected to a jury instruction mistaking the definition of the words “reckless disregard.” The 9th Circuit panel spent several pages defining those two words a jury would, of course, certainly understand. No doubt jurors argued about this issue in their deliberations although the trial record does not reflect their disagreement .
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct. 820 (2018). According to the canon of “constitutional avoidance” it was misapplied by the 9th Circuit because its construction inferring detention limitation in immigration statutes was not plausible. The 9th Circuit had ordered bonds for detainees in immigration without any statutory or Constitutional evidence.