Marina Del Rosario Lima Jacobo, Petitioner, v. Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
705
Oil, David H. Wetmore, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM**
Petitioner Marina Del Rosario Lima Jacobo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her third motion to reopen. For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions for women in Guatemala. The evidence Petitioner submitted with her most recent motion to reopen showed that the conditions described had existed for years in Guatemala and failed to introduce previously unavailable evidence showing a material change in conditions in Guatemala since the time of Petitioner’s 2002 hearing.
AFFIRMED.
BRIDGE AINA LE’A, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle CHOCK, in his individual and official capacity; Thomas P. Contrades, in his individual and official capacity; Vladimir P. Devens, in his individual and official capacity; Normand R. Lezy, in his individual and official capacity; Duane Kanuha, in his official capacity; Charles Jencks, in his official capacity; Lisa M. Judge, in her individual and official capacity; Nicholas W. Teves, Jr., in his individual and official capacity; Ronald I. Heller; John Does 1-10; Janes Does 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; Doe Entities 1-10; Doe Governmental Units 1-10; State of Hawaii Land Use Commission, Defendants-Appellants. Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kyle Chock, in his individual and official capacity; Thomas P. Contrades, in his individual and official capacity; Normand R. Lezy, in his individual and official capacity; Vladimir P. Devens, in his individual and official capacity; Duane Kanuha, in his official capacity; Charles Jencks, in his official capacity; Lisa M. Judge, in her individual and official capacity; Nicholas W. Teves, Jr., in his individual
Nos. 12-15971, 12-16076
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted June 10, 2014. Filed Jan. 23, 2015.
706
Michael Charles Carroll, Esquire, Matthew Cory Shannon, Bruce D. Voss, Esquire, Bays Lung Rose & Holma, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Diane Erickson, Esquire, William Joseph Wynhoff, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM*
In 2011, the State of Hawai’i Land Use Commission (“LUC”) reclassified a parcel of land owned by plaintiff Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC (“Bridge”) from urban to agricultural use. Bridge filed two actions in Hawai’i state court challenging the reclassification: a state administrative appeal, and a state civil action against the LUC and the commissioners in their official and individual capacities alleging a variety of federal and state claims. Defendants removed the civil action to federal court.
The district court abstained pursuant to Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). We have jurisdiction under
We review de novo whether a case meets the requirements for Pullman abstention. Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.2005). If the requirements are met, we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to abstain and stay the proceeding. Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776, 782 (9th Cir.2014). While this case originally met Pullman’s requirements, abstention is no longer necessary. After the district court’s decision, and after oral argument to this court, the Supreme Court of Hawai’i held that the LUC erred when it reclassified the parcel as agricultural without following the state’s procedural requirements under Section 205-4 of the Hawai’i Revised Statutes. See DW Aina Le’a Dev., LLC v. Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC, 134 Hawai’i 187, 339 P.3d 685, 689-90 (2014). The Supreme Court of Hawai’i affirmed on state law grounds the state circuit court judgment reversing and vacating the LUC’s final reclassification order. Id.
We remand to the district court for appropriate action in light of the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s decision. The district court should decide in the first instance whether the LUC commissioners sued in their individual capacities are entitled to some form of official immunity.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.