712 F.3d 1271
9th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiff-Appellants are Aurelio Duran Gonzales and six other Mexican citizens who were removed and reentered without inspection.
- From within the U.S., they sought adjustment of status and 1-212 waivers of inadmissibility based on prior removal and unlawful reentry.
- They previously relied on Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft to permit filing such waivers within the U.S. despite a ten-year gap.
- After Perez-Gonzalez, the BIA interpreted the ten-year rule to require ten years, even for aliens unlawfully present in the U.S.
- Duran Gonzales I held they were not eligible for 1-212 waivers, deferring to the BIA’s Torres-Garcia interpretation under Brand X deference.
- On remand, Garfias-Rodriguez overruled aspects of retroactivity, adopting a Montgomery Ward framework for Brand X deference; the opinion now remands for reconsideration consistent with the new test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duran Gonzales I may be retroactively applied. | Gonzales argues Garfias-Rodriguez governs retroactivity and supports applying the new rule retroactively. | Government argues Garfias-Rodriguez sets a case-by-case retroactivity framework and governs remand analysis. | Remand to apply the Montgomery Ward retroactivity test under Garfias-Rodriguez. |
| Whether law-of-the-case governs in light of intervening authority. | Plaintiffs contend law-of-the-case should control the retroactivity issue. | Government contends intervening Garfias-Rodriguez changes the controlling authority. | Law-of-the-case not applied; intervening authority requires remand. |
| How Montgomery Ward factors apply on remand to class and amendment issues. | Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint and class definition; Montgomery Ward factors should guide retroactivity and class viability. | Government urges applying Montgomery Ward to determine futility of amendments. | Remand for district court to reconsider amendments and class viability under Montgomery Ward. |
| Whether to certify/maintain class given case-by-case retroactivity framework. | Plaintiffs seek to maintain class status under existing framework. | Government argues class treatment may not be appropriate under the Montgomery Ward framework. | No decision on class viability; remand to assess under new framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004) (alien may file 1-212 waiver within the U.S. despite ten-year bar (ambiguous statute))
- Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding aliens not eligible for adjustment due to lack of 1-212 waiver)
- Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (Chevron deference to agency interpretations; framework for retroactivity in Brand X cases)
- Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2010) (tests retroactivity under prior framework; cited in retroactivity discussions)
- Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc adopts Montgomery Ward retroactivity test for Brand X deference)
- Duran Gonzales II, 659 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2011) (original retroactivity ruling subsequently questioned by Garfias-Rodriguez)
- Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1993) (retroactivity presumptions under Brand X context)
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982) (five-factor test for retroactivity)
- Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, 708 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (applies Montgomery Ward retroactivity in immigration context)