Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder

ZOUHARY, District Judges, and JACK Judge.* GOODWIN; by Judge Partial Opinion by Judge Partial Dissent and Concurrence ZOUHARY.

OPINION GOODWIN, Judge: Circuit immi- pending In a number of view of calling question into the con- gration cases INS, vitality of Ekimian v. tinued (9th Cir.2002), we must decide F.3d 1153 can review a BIA decision whether we in the context of a claim against reopening affirm the BIA equitable tolling. of We regarding notice. do not re- decision We re- sponte reopening. the sua We view tolling, equitable verse the BIA decision on agency pro- and remand to the for further ceedings.

I. AND PROCEDURAL FACTS HISTORY Mejia-Hernandez, Bernardino Eduardo Guatemala, petitions of for review a citizen Immigration Appeals of a Board (“BIA”) Immigration vacating Cifuentes, Knapp and Claire Ci- Andrew (“IJ”) suspension deportation Judge’s Associates, Angeles, Knapp fuentes & Los reinstating deportation. an order of CA, petitioner. for the BIA found that received effec- original hearing, merits T. tive notice of Jager, Glen Office Justice, reopen- to the sua was not entitled Litigation, Department U.S. IJ, D.C., by the and was entitled respondent. ing granted for Washington, * Ohio, by designation. sitting Zouhary, United States The Honorable Jack Judge District of District for the Northern Ramos, tolling of the deadline for a who assxxredhim that the INS was fee, Nicaraguan requiring incorrect problem. American Relief Ramos would correct Adjustment and Central 203(c). (NACARA) Ramos never refiled. Pub.L. No. 105- Act (1997), amended Stat. 2160 15, 1998, Mejia On November Lopez (1997). 105-139, 111 Pub.L. No. Stat. years Mejia married. For almost seven Lopez paid Ramos to handle their the United States on

Petitioner entered cases. Ramos continued to assure them February 1993. On November being that their cases prop- were handled asylum. asylum An applied erly. Lopez granted ap- When was an guerillas officer found that had beaten Me- claim, pointment concerning her NACARA death, jia point of near but that he however, Ramos refused to attend with any on account of had not been harmed secretary her. Ramos’s then admitted to protected grounds. The officer referred Lopez that Ramos was not a licensed at- IJ, Mejia Immigration to an and the and 7, 2005, torney. January On Lopez was (“INS”) Naturalization Service served Me- granted Mejia, relief under NACARA. jia with an Order to Show Cause for enter- concerned that being his case was not han- ing inspection. Mejia the U.S. without properly, dled present consulted his attor- proceeded pro presented se and himself at ney 30, April for the first time on 2005. hearing through several dates 1996. On occasion, hearings one were rescheduled 5, 2005, July Mejia On filed a motion to for insufficient time and on another the IJ reopen to deportation rescind the order of appear. failed to At the last of these absentia, entered in renewed his motion to Mejia appearances, proper submitted a NACARA, reopen under and raised the form, change of and of a address notice 11, equitable tolling. issue of On August hearing subsequently rescheduled was 2005, an reopened proceedings IJ the sua by sent to his new address certified mail. (1) sponte for the following stated reasons: delivery attempts, package After two the Mejia’s original asylum timely claim was unclaimed, January (2) remained and on adjudicated; Mejia, filed but never with Mejia deported an IJ ordered wife, (3) children; his had two U.S.-born absentia. Mejia’s granted per- wife had been lawful NACARA; through manent resident status 31, 1998, Mejia, along On March (4) family hardship and the would suffer if Lopez, Marta Odelia Perez the mother of Mejia’s favorably adjudi- claims were not children, his two consulted U.S.-born cated. The IJ further noted that such a Bryan of the Ramos Centro de Assistencia spirit decision was within the and intent of falsely rep- Social Guatamalteco. Ramos NACARA. attorney resented himself as an licensed to Mejia’s At practice immigration February law. On behalf of 2006 merits Mejia Lopez, hearing, both Ramos filed for En- Customs 203(c). (ICE) relief under NACARA Ramos forcement Assistant Chief Counsel Mejia Mejia eligible statutorily eligible told he would be for residen- stated that was wife, cy through despite the fact that for NACARA relief and had established Mejia Lopez yet legally requisite were not mar- the hardship. appeal, On howev- 13, 1998, er, Mejia discretion, in- April opposed, ried. On ICE as an abuse of government sponte reopening, formed that his motion the IJ’s sua as the sole rejected Mejia had due to the failxire to to the BIA. then appeal been issue Mejia proper include a fee. met with raised the issue of notice for his $110 known provides The BIA overturned last address sufficient no- hearing. service, tice to effect whether or reopening, rejected IJ’s sua signed or and letter was the alien tolling arguments, equitable notice person responsible at his address. In re deportation order. reinstated the (BIA 21 I. Grijalva, & N. Dec. to this court. timely appealed 1995). Grijalva that “where held service REVIEW II. OF STANDARDS a notice of deportation1 proceeding by certified through sent mail United BIA novo the The reviewed de proof States Postal Service and there is concerning tolling of finding IJ’s attempted delivery and notification cer- deadline. We review NACARA mail, a strong presumption tified effec- novo, the ex except de BIA’s decision tive This service arises.” Id. court are af agency interpretations tent “that has held notice certified mail sent Garcia-Quintero deference. forded to an alien’s last known address can be (9th Gonzales, 455 F.3d Cir. [Immigration sufficient and Na- 2006). BIA’s reviewed here Act, tionality] even signed if no one for it.” single is and issued a unpublished I.N.S., (9th v. Arrieta 117 F.3d 431 BIA; it carry Ofthe does not member Cir.1997). law, it is only accorded Skid- force thor proportional deference to its more This strong presumption effec reasoning, oughness, consistency, and abil notice mail contrasts tive certified with ity (citing Id. persuade. to at 1012-15 a weaker that results presumption from Co., & 323 65 Skidmore U.S. Swift I.N.S., regular mail service. Salta v. 314 (1944)). 124 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. 1079(9th Cir.2002). F.3d “Where a actually a petitioner proceeding initiates to III. DISCUSSION benefit, a appears obtain at earlier Mejia proper A. received notice of his hearing, and has no to motive avoid the hearing and not entitled to a

1997 is hearing, petitioner a sworn from affidavit reopening hearing. of that that neither responsible party [he] nor a residing at received [his] address the no that,

Mejia argues although he had ordinarily tice should be sufficient to rebut hearing, constructive notice of his presumption [regular mail] deliv notice, actual never received and should ery.” Id. to BIA reopen. therefore allowed The be rejected this correctly argument, based on Mejia initiated to proceedings his re- hearing twice-unclaimed notice of sent benefit, ceive a at earlier appeared hear- mail to proper certified address. ings, had no motive known to avoid his wife, hearing, and, together An alien ordered removed in absentia his with statutory right only has a to to other seek adult resident his ad- petition dress, signed case and relief. See 8 U.S.C. sworn affidavit he did 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); § Mejia C.F.R. not receive meets the notice. Salta 1003.23(b)(4)(h). § But the BIA has held test for overcoming presumption the weak . bearing regular that certified mail notice of the of constructive notice mail. Mejia original hearing presented removal sent to an alien’s But has no additional evi- change "deportation” point The of terms this are identical. from otherwise Com- "removal,” amendment, 1252b(c)(3)(B) by legislative pare § affected the older 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). inconsequential is § as the and old statutes the newer 8 new U.S.C. petitioner’s stronger presump- overcome the access federal courts. dence to mail in by the use of certified Id. tion created Department The of Homeland his case. statutory The explicit Court noted refer- (DHS) into evidence the Security put has employed by Congress ences to make cer- envelope mail and certificates certified tain agency decisions unreviewable. Id. at attempted two but unclaimed de- showing 1252(a)(2)(B)). § (citing 831-32 8 U.S.C. address, at the correct which Me- liveries statutory None of these reservations of

jia’s effectively cannot rebut. evidence however, authority, exempted from federal Therefore, Mejia we hold that received court review a BIA denial of a motion to hearing notice of his 1997 and is effective Kucana, proceeding. a removal reopening hearing to a of that not entitled 1003.2(a). 840; § 130 S.Ct. at 8 C.F.R. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). under 8 U.S.C.

The overall thrust of Kucana suggests B. This court cannot review the BIA’s sponte that sua reopening should be sub- decision to overturn the IJ’s sua ject to review. There a longstanding sponte reopening. judicial tradition of review of reopenings cases; immigration sug- there is no statute

Next, Mejia would have us re available; gesting is not review there is a BIA decision to overturn the IJ’s view the review; presumption favoring and there is reopening of his case. The sua separation-of-powers against concern precedent pre contends that government giving authority the Executive Ekimian, withhold review. 303 F.3d vents such See judicial cases 'from review. See id. at 831. curiae, at 1159. and amicus impression, Were this an issue of first a Council, counter American right might recognized. to review be Supreme ruling that a effec recent Court tively precedent. that Ku overturns See Kucana, however, Prior to this court — Holder, -, v. U.S. 130 S.Ct. cana and nine other found a circuits decision not (2010). 827, L.Ed.2d 694 “This court 175 reopen sponte to sua to be one that was jurisdiction ju has to determine whether agency committed to discretion law Gonzales, risdiction exists.” Morales v. therefore, and, unreviewable. See Ekimi- (9th Cir.2007) (internal 972, 478 F.3d 977 an, 1159; 303 F.3d at Tamenut v. Muka- omitted). agree marks with quotation We (8th Cir.2008) 1000, sey, 521 F.3d 1003-04 government’s position. the (en banc) (summarizing prec- other circuit 701(a)(2). edents); §

The Kucana Court found that a 5 Unlike Ku- U.S.C. Kucana, cana, was reviewable. the Ekimian court was looking fa presumption statutory regulatory language 130 S.Ct. at 840. or affir- “[T]he judicial matively putting ac a BIA decision outside of voring review administrative Instead, judicial purview. means that “executive determinations this could tion” court subject generally judicial “sufficiently meaningful are to review.” not find a stan- judge Precluding requires against Id. at 839. review dard which to the BIA’s convincing reopen” sponte. clear and evidence that Con decision not to sua Eki- mian, dislodge gress presump intended to this 303 F.3d at 1159. Ekimian relies tion. Id. The Court looks for such evi on the narrow Heckler decision and its 701(a)(2) statutory interpretation § that of the Admin- language dence reveals (“APA”). Act Id. at Congress’s preclude intent to review. Id. istrative Procedures 1157, (citing Chaney, An lan Heckler v. 470 agency’s regulatory at 1158 714 guage nothing more cannot bar a U.S. 105 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d 824 701(a)(2)).2 petitioner prevented is

(1985) periods § The Ku- when 5 U.S.C. fraud, opinion on or expressed deception, no from because cana Court may review a BIA error, courts long petitioner federal acts with whether as sponte, reopening sua deny to discovering deception, diligence due in an unreviewability grounded is I.N.S., where fraud, or error.” Iturribarria Kucana, 701(a)(2) rationale. APA (9th Cir.2003). 889, 897 321 F.3d 839, n. 18. S.Ct. rep fraudulent When the issue is turns, according reopening

Sua resentation, period “the limitations is BIA, has petitioner whether a petitioner definitively tolled until “exceptional circumstances” demonstrated Singh v. J-J-, learns of counsel’s fraud.” Gon 21 I. Matter justify the action. to Cir.2007) (9th (BIA 1997). zales, The Eki 491 F.3d & N. Dec. omitted). (internal meaningful In quotation could not find marks mian court judge satisfaction of definitively standard which did not Singh, petitioner circumstances” test. Eki “exceptional against him perpetrated learn of the fraud mian, significant F.3d at 1159. No suspicious of merely when he had become occurred since Ekimian that changes have lawyer’s family fraud and members his sufficiently to find a panel would allow this get lawyer. him he should another told standard, to re meaningful and allow us Id. sponte reopening.

view sua Equitable tolling “applied in sit reasonably relied on the ad- C. where, diligence, despite uations all due “attorney,” his fraudulent vice of tolling is party requesting equitable tolling thereby equitably dead- bearing information unable to obtain vital line for his motion to the claim.” on the existence of Albillo-De NACARA. (brackets Leon, 410 F.3d at 1099-1100 found, The IJ and on de novo re omitted). quotation internal marks Albil affirmed, view the BIA NA- suspect good lo-De Leon had reason legally to reopen CARA motion was insuf at “attorney” perpetrating was fraud. Id. ficient, Mejia married his wife two 1094. He later learned that the court had Septem later than the months NACARA alleged no of a motion to have been record filing. ber 1998 deadline for See 8 a filed on his behalf. He filed Freedom 1003.43(e)(1). § But and C.F.R. the IJ (“FOIA”) and, request, Information Act incorrectly BIA have assessed whether months after his earlier more than six equitably that deadline was tolled. See the re suspicions, upon receiving FOIA Gonzales, Leon Albillo-De F.3d “attorney” was unli sponse, learned his (9th Cir.2005) (finding that a motion had been filed on his censed and no 203(c) subject § NACARA deadline is to held that Albillo-De behalf. Id. This court equitable tolling). diligence Leon acted with due and did not definitively being that he was de learn “recognizes equitable This court re frauded until the FOIA results were tolling of limits deadlines and numerical The NACARA dead- reopen during motions to or reconsider ceived. Id. 1100. review; APA, (2) 701(a) judicial agen- governs preclude or 2. Section of the which statutes actions, reviewability by of administrative reads: cy agency discretion action is committed to chapter applies, according provi- "This to the law.” thereof, (1) except sions to the extent that — long, ultimately tolled Other than the but rea- equitably was question line in sonable, time, length only apparent period. this Id. throughout Mejia may clue have had that Ramos was falsely repre- who Mejia hired someone rejection him defrauding was the of his attorney. Ra- as a licensed sented himself reopen for lack of a in filing fee to file a on March mos was hired unreasonable, however, 1998. It was not to under NACARA motion Mejia rely attorney’s for to on his subse- 203(c). in- Mejia subsequently was assurances, believe, quent not that he that his by Immigration Court formed defrauded, being merely was but that the reopen, prepared to and filed motion a not DHS had made mistake. This is Ramos, rejected due to the absence of was kind of evidence that would cause a rea- Mejia filing a Ramos assured fee. person definitively sonable to know that-he court, that was a mistake this Singh, had been defrauded. See 491 F.3d properly would address. at 1096. Mejia years seeking' receiving went BIA Mejia “essentially found that assurances, continuing pay Ramos. acknowledged July his 2005 Sworn Dec- Mejia’s The BIA viewed continued reliance having already laration known of such claim raising on Ramos as a failure problems back in 1998.” This statement counsel, assistance of a fail- of ineffective “having the BIA of known” appears to therefore, found diligence, ure of due problem filing refer fee. equitable tolling basis, of the deadline. But Mejia no BIA On this found that suggest facts otherwise. eligible additional was not for tolling of the deadline. NACARA that Ramos Mejia first learned was not, But did in his 2005 declara- secretary, attorney through Ramos’s tion, “essentially acknowledge” that he had Mejia’s to accompany when Ramos refused definitively learned 1998 that Ramos long-awaited ap- her wife to NACARA fraudulently representing was him. In- Mejia’s pointment. granted The DHS wife stead, Mejia following stated the about the January under NACARA on relief events of 1998: Mejia’s derivative motion to Byron which pre- the motion Ramos dependent on the success of NACARA pared following and filed the month was being granted his wife relief. It was not rejected by Court with wife to have re- unreasonable asking pay me to letter $110 assistance; long lied for so on Ramos’s her In response, Byron fee. Ramos assured years claim took almost seven NACARA me that the had made a mistake Court process ultimately but succeeded. Like- timely my and that he would resubmit Mejia, it that wise was not unreasonable Thereafter, motion. on the numerous wife’s, whose claim was derivative to his Byron I asked occasions when Ramos rely similarly expect would on Ramos and case, my for the status of he continued from on claim no action DHS his derivative my to assure me that motion remained until sometime after his wife’s claim was that properly pending Immigra- and Mejia not have had his settled. would just waiting until the tion Court was claim settled until 2005 even if he had not granted my appli- wife’s NACARA INS fraudulently long The represented. been my case. cation to waiting by Mejia did not show a period of Mejia acknowledgment his This is not an that diligence, proved lack of due definitively learned that he was victim wife’s successful result. had Mejia any had ever that ord that motion Nor is it evidence of fraud. “attorney” the fraudulent on on notice of fraud and been filed effectively put was Leon, claim, Mejia’s In Albillo-De failing the test behalf. on his thereafter sat 1099-1100, the court continued to Mejia did what a reason- F.3d diligence. of due situation; petitioner’s early despite in the toll the deadline do person able would “attorney” lawyer suspicions despite that his about his on his and assumed relied that stating being in that it was told a court clerk there was lawyer was correct motion; only no record of his it was after that had made a mistake. He the DHS that receiving response claim to be a FOIA showed a reasonably waited for his wife’s would The BIA’s motion had never been filed and that the before his be. settled tolling “attorney” peti- an was not licensed that the against equitable was discretion; “definitively tioner learned” of the fraud. abuse of the NACARA 203(c) rationale, Mejia Applying § the same did equitably deadline was tolled. subject definitively learn that he was that, 2006, in an ICE Assistant Given “attorney” that his fraud until he learned Mejia Counsel conceded that had Chief was not licensed and was told the court requisite hardship and met established that no motion on his behalf existed. That statutory requirements for NACARA Mejia finally was when obtained the “vital relief, equitable tolling recog- and once information bearing on existence of the nized, this case is reduced to the denial of Singh, claim.” 491 F.3d at 1096. That attorney relief based on a fraudulent fail- 30, April date is 2005. ing to include a fee with $110 10, April reopen, period equitable tolling began 1998 motion to and then The Ramos, lying blindly Mejia about it. Such a result would when first contacted March 30, date, intent in ignore Congressional April inherent 1998. With an 2005 end NACARA, up family period tolling years other- was seven break 203(c) § A wise entitled to relief. calculation and one month. The dead- NACARA period application question September of the toll- line 1998. 1003.43(e)(1).3 ing corrects this result. C.F.R. deadline then was tolled until October key steps process are two in the There Mejia date, 5, 2005, definitively learning July Mejia of Ramos’s Before this on January Reopen Deportation fraud. Sometime around 2005 filed a “Motion to that not a Proceedings was told Ramos was to Rescind Order of De attorney, learning portation licensed while also part Entered Absentia.” As had, nonetheless, motion, Mejia requested adjudica Ramos’s efforts succeed- of that in securing April pro rejected April ed relief for his wife. On tion nunc tunc of his 203(c) 30, 2005, Mejia’s present attorney reopen. called 1998 NACARA Alternatively, Executive Office Re- he asked that the new mo system adjudicated view’s purposes automated found no rec- tion be for such question legitimate attorney 3. The deadline in was for a motion would have alerted Me requirement to that included the that jia only way to the that the fact could applicant the married NA be to an ultimate remain in the U.S. with his soon-to-be wife beneficiary. CARA See 8 C.F.R. and their two children would be to move the 1003.43(e)(1), (b)(4), (d)(5). §§ It was up by wedding date of his two months. It not, suggest, marriage as the DHS seems to a safe, ultimately unnecessary, seems but to as only deadline. needs to have mar been keep sume that he would have done so to only ried the tolled deadline. This is not family intact. result, logical equitable but also the result

827 ” discretion.’ Id. at tolling. agency’s We hold exercise of equitable the basis the NA 105 timely motion meets S.Ct. that this 203(c) making Me requirements, CARA agen- however does not allow an Heckler relief. jia eligible for NACARA judicial cy to restrict review its own by declaring those decisions decisions dis-

IV. CONCLUSION cretionary, by providing or no standard for notice of his Mejia received effective review. This would have the undesirable Kucana, BIA hearing. Despite 1997 allowing agencies to insulate effect of sponte reopening reversal of the IJ’s sua review, judicial themselves from which subject by this court. We is not to review ‘presumption “contravenes the ... “that BIA decisions. How- do not disturb these generally executive determinations are ever, BIA decision that we reverse the ’” Zetino, subject judicial to review.” 596 application was not sub- Mejia’s NACARA (Lawson, J., concurring) (citing F.3d 529 tolling and remand ject to 839). Kucana, 130 S.Ct. at consistent with this proceedings further decision. Moreover, recently published this Court PART, IN DENIED IN

GRANTED opinion an amended in Zetino which casts REMANDED, party each PART AND precedential further doubt on the value of version, bear own costs. original its Ekimian. Unlike opinion the BIA’s denial amended reviews ZOUHARY, Judge, concurring District an petitioner’s accept motion to untime- dissenting part concurring in in part, ly precisely process That brief. judgment: in the suggested original concurring opin- in the Zetino, majority’s ion. F.3d 1012-13 I concur with most of the See 622 (9th Cir.2010) 517). (amending I re- 596 judgment. decision and with the F.3d however, ways, regard spectfully part neither Zetino nor deal While Kucana majority’s conclusion that we are ability with the exact issue at hand —our the BIA’s decision to unable to review review the BIA’s decision to overturn the sponte motion to overturn IJ’s sua sponte reopening sua do not be- IJ’s —I Supreme I Court’s reopen. believe any there is reason to treat review of lieve — Holder, in v. U.S. Kucana the BIA’s decision to reverse IJ’s sua -, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 S.Ct. sponte reopening differently from the (2010), implicitly overrules this Court’s question reached Kucana the reviewa- INS, in Ekimian v. earlier decision a motion to bility of the BIA’s denial of (9th Cir.2002). F.3d 1153 ' Kucana, In proceedings. removal agree concurring opinion I with the Congress that there was no clear evidence (9th Holder, v. 596 F.3d Zetino sponte actions unre- intended to make sua Cir.2010) Chaney, 470 U.S. that Heckler Kucana, 130 viewable courts. See S.Ct. (1984), 1649, L.Ed.2d 714 105 S.Ct. at 827-28. Specifically, misapplied Ekimian. Likewise, here “Congress that can re- there is no clear evidence Heckler concluded Congress over to make unreview- jurisdiction strict the of federal courts intended of the BIA’s reversal the APA able the similar case agency certain actions under reopen by an IJ. ‘discretionary’ drafting sua deeming them reopen can be made meaning- a court ‘no And a decision to provide ‘statutes’ that circumstances,” a stan- judge “exceptional which to against ful standard v. jurisdiction for review dard that allows by the courts. Willits Environmental Remediation Trust; Hydraulics, Inc., Remco debtor and Zetino deci- the Kucana Based on possession bankruptcy estate; jurisdic- sions, find that we have I would Industries, Inc., pos M-C Debtor and, BIA’s decision to review the tion Bankruptcy estate, of the De session therefore, dissent from respectfully fendants, majority’s opinion. portion of the Farr; Associates,

Ann Henshaw & Defendants, Corporation; Pneumo Abex Whitman Corporation, Defendants- Appellees. AVILA; Abbot; Ariella Adonnamarie

M. Avila; Donna M. Ariella Adonnamarie Abbot; Louise Judith N. Alva Melissa Abbot; Abbot; Melissa Louise Judith rez; Arlich; Aaron Gabriel Christina Alvarez; Arlich; N. Aaron Gabriel Arlich; Arlich; Michelle Jarrod Alan Arlich; Michelle Christina Jarrod Arlich; Arlich; Alan Matthew J. John Arlich; Arlich; Alan John Alan Mat (See Arlich, Pamela et al. Exhibit Jo Arlich; Arlich, Pamela et thew J. Jo Appeal full A of Notice of for list of (See Ap al. Exhibit A of Notice of plaintiff/appellants), Plaintiffs-Appel peal plaintiff/appel full for list of lants, lants), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Hydraulics, Inc.; Remco

WILLITS ENVIRONMENTAL Industries, Inc., M-C TRUST, REMEDIATION Defendants, Defendant, Corporation; Whitman Pneumo Abex Hydraulics, Inc.; Remco Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendants- Corporation; Corporation; Whitman Appellees. Industries, Inc., pos M-C Debtor in Avila; Avila; M. Donna Bernadette Bankruptcy estate, session of the De Brown; Avila; Francisco I. Christine fendants-Appellees. Castillo; Dryden; Marnie Arletta Jean Avila; Gary Dryden; Dryden; Donna M. Ariella Lee Ar Adonnamarie Valder Abbot; Abbot; Ford; Ford; Melissa Louise Judith rita Garland W. G. Steve Alvarez; Arlich; Lewis; Lewis; Dorothy Liles; N. Aaron Gabriel Lois Arlich; McCann; McDaniel; Christina Michelle Lisa Jarrod Connie Arlich; Arlich; Clay McDaniel; Olin; Alan Alan Mat D. John Glen Jodi Arlich; Arlich, Olin; Phillips; thew et J. Pamela Jo Larie Christina Ram (See sey; Abbott; Ap al. A Exhibit of Notice of Ariella A. Marissa Anne Alvarez; Roy peal plaintiff/appel Alger; full list of Judith N. An lants), Plaintiffs-Appellants, Amerson; Arlich; drew Aaron Gabriel

Case Details

Case Name: Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 27, 2011

Citation: 633 F.3d 818

Docket Number: 07-74277

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.