Posada Martinez v. Bondi
21-110
9th Cir.Jun 6, 2025Background
- Cesar Eduardo Posada Martinez sought review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's denial of cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The IJ found Posada removable and denied all his applications, including cancellation of removal based on a prior drug conviction.
- On appeal, Posada challenged the BIA's jurisdiction (because his initial notice to appear lacked time and place), the IJ's due process, and the use of his expunged drug conviction to bar relief.
- The California state court had set aside Posada’s conviction after he completed probation, under a state rehabilitative statute.
- The BIA found him ineligible for cancellation of removal based on the "stop-time rule" triggered by the conviction.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case under substantial evidence for facts and de novo for law, granting the petition in part and denying in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction with Defective Notice | Faulty notice to appear deprived BIA of jurisdiction. | BIA retained jurisdiction per precedent. | BIA had jurisdiction per United States v. Bastide-Hernandez. |
| Challenge to Removability | Raised removability as contested. | Not properly presented in BIA briefing. | Not considered—issue not exhausted before BIA. |
| Due Process Over Corroboration | IJ didn’t provide adequate notice/opportunity. | IJ gave notice and ample opportunity. | No due process violation—adequate notice given. |
| Expunged Drug Conviction—FFOA Treatment | Conviction should not count under Lujan-Armendariz. | BIA held expungement didn't cure for stop-time rule. | Lujan-Armendariz applies; conviction does not trigger stop-time rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643 (9th Cir. 2023) (standard of review for factual findings and legal questions in immigration cases)
- United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (validity of jurisdiction despite defective notice to appear)
- Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (issue exhaustion in immigration appeals)
- Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency requirements for notice and opportunity regarding corroboration in credibility findings)
- Lujan-Armendariz v. I.N.S., 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal first offender act treatment of certain state drug convictions)