Immigration cases are voluminous, frequently fact specific and and involving rarely used precedent. For that reason we will summarize cases briefly.

Lorenzo v. Sessions, .F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2018)

Lorenzo filed a petition to appeal the decision of an immigration judge and BIA ordering his deportation. The grounds of appeal were the California statute prohibiting a certain kind of drug differed in content from that of the federal statute and should not be invoked for deporting. The Ninth Circuit panel agreed and reversed.

Using the difference between almost the same item, both of which in violation of federal and state statutes respectively, is not the function of the immigration court.  Immigration courts are not a criminal court but an administrative court to determine whether a petitioner should remain in the United States after committing a crime. Violation of a California statute is a crime warranting sentence. The IJ and the BIA both agreed the California crime warranted deportation.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed, reversed, and remanded.

Orlando Vasquez v. Valle, 2018 DJDAR 7933 (2018)

In a case worse than Lorenzo: The Ninth Circuit panel describes Vasquez-Valle as a native of Mexico in the United States. In other words, an “illegal alien.” Ordered removed by the IJ and BIA, Vasquez petitioned the Ninth Circuit for cancellation of removal on grounds he had been convicted by an Oregon court of witness tampering. Oregon courts held this conduct consisted of moral turpitude and statutorily prohibited. Not in the Ninth Circuit. Moral turpitude must be the federal definition of crime-fraudulent, base, vile or depraved. Therefore, “tampering with a witness” is not a crime of moral turpitude.

This legal definition in a courtroom is another example of an appellate court acting as a criminal court to allow this “citizen of Mexico” to remain in the United States and is incomprehensible.

U.S. v. Garcia Lopez, 903 F.3d 987 (2018)

Lopez pled guilty to the crime of crime of robbery, a “crime of violence” In California, and was subsequently ordered deported by the IJ.  Lopez appealed to the 9th Circuit, and  the court held robbery in California courts differed from the federal definition of the crime and therefore not an “aggravated felony” warranting deportation.

Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901 (2018)

According to the 9th Circuit, the fear of the applicant’s appeal for asylum based on persecution in his country, and the return of the source of political power, warranted rebutting the government rebuttal of presumption of asylum.

Diaz-Jiminez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955 (2018)

The IJ ordered Jiminez deported based on his failure as an alien working as an employee for a private employer to sign a false statement mandatorily required by federal government. The statute was worded to prohibit signing  a false statement, but Jiminez signed no statement at all. So the 9th Circuit on appeal held he committed no crime and no statutory violation.

Nguyen v. Sessions 901 F.3d 1093 (2018)

The BIA ruled that a legal permanent resident could not cancel her removal based on the statutory rule. On appeal the 9th Circuit held the BIA used the wrong rule was applied to the petitioner.

.