Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing the appeals of Maria de los Angeles Meraz Espindola and her two minor children from an Immigration Judge’s order denying their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a substantial evidence standard to factual determinations and reviewed questions of law de novo. Regarding asylum, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The court reasoned that the murders of the Petitioner’s husband and his uncle did not constitute past persecution against the Petitioners themselves because the harm was not “closely tied” to them, and anonymous threats were insufficient. Furthermore, the record failed to show why the Petitioners could not safely relocate within Mexico given their previous safe relocation. Regarding withholding of removal, the court affirmed that the Petitioners were ineligible because their failure to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution for asylum necessarily precluded a showing of a “clear probability” of such persecution required for withholding. Regarding CAT relief, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the Petitioners did not meet their burden. The court noted that the alleged torture would be inflicted by private individuals rather than government actors, and there was no evidence of government consent or acquiescence. Additionally, the record indicated the Petitioners could safely relocate to another part of Mexico, as they had previously done so without harm. Consequently, the petition is denied.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The ninth-circuit granted Qianwu Li’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further proceedings. While the court affirmed that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on Li’s prior falsehoods regarding his visa application and implausible testimony about seeking medical treatment, it held that the agency erred by failing to evaluate whether Li’s documentary evidence—specifically letters from churchgoers and his father—could independently establish a claim of past persecution without relying on Li’s credible testimony. The court applied the standard set forth in *Kalulu v. Bondi*, requiring the agency to assess independent evidence when a petitioner is found non-credible, noting that asylum and withholding of removal statutes do not mandate credible testimony if other evidence suffices. Additionally, the court vacated the immigration judge’s unexplained discretionary denial of asylum as an abuse of discretion, ordering the BIA to consider Li’s eligibility for both asylum and withholding of removal on remand. The court noted that Li’s claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) was forfeited because he failed to contest the agency’s prior determination regarding that specific relief. Consequently, the case is returned to the BIA to determine if the documentary evidence independently proves past persecution and to exercise discretion on asylum eligibility, while the CAT denial remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Eleventh Circuit denied consolidated petitions for review filed by various railroads and industry associations challenging the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) 2024 Crew Size Rule. The court held that the FRA acted within its statutory authority under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, which empowers the agency to issue safety regulations “as necessary,” interpreting this phrase as granting broad discretion rather than imposing a strict evidentiary bar requiring quantitative proof of necessity. Applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard, the court found the FRA reasonably exercised its discretion by relying on qualitative evidence, including public comments regarding close calls, research on cognitive demands, and trends such as increasing train lengths and human-factor accidents, to justify the rule as a precautionary measure. The court rejected arguments that the FRA violated the “change-in-position” doctrine by reversing its 2019 decision to withdraw a previous crew-size proposal, ruling that the vacated 2019 order had no legal effect and thus did not constitute an existing policy requiring heightened justification for reversal. Additionally, the court determined the FRA was not required to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis under *Michigan v. EPA* because the statute lacked the word “appropriate,” and even if it were, the agency’s consideration of costs was reasonable. The court also found no conflict between the rule and the Rail Safety Improvement Act’s risk reduction program and held that the FRA’s failure to finalize the rule within a statutory 12-month deadline did not warrant vacatur, as the statute imposed no specific consequence for missing the deadline. Consequently, the petitions were denied, leaving the Crew Size Rule in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Entrata, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration provision in the company’s online portal terms and conditions was unenforceable under Maryland law due to a lack of mutual consideration. The court applied the standard that an agreement lacks consideration and is never formed when it consists entirely of illusory promises. Specifically, the court found Entrata’s “Change Clause” rendered its promise to arbitrate illusory because it granted Entrata unfettered discretion to unilaterally modify the terms at any time without providing meaningful advance notice or a mechanism for users to reject changes before they took effect. The court reasoned that because the Terms bound users to any updated version simply by accessing the portal, and the “Notices Clause” only required posting updates on the site rather than providing direct notice, Entrata could effectively escape its contractual obligations at will while leaving users with no opportunity to end the agreement prior to a modification taking effect. Consequently, the arbitration agreement was deemed never to have been formed, allowing the underlying consumer protection lawsuit to proceed in federal court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of Carlos Flores-Hernandez’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review, holding that the record did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not Flores-Hernandez would be persecuted or tortured if returned to Mexico. Regarding withholding of removal, the court found no past persecution occurred after his resignation from the police force, as he suffered only verbal threats rather than physical harm, and no future persecution was likely given that ten years had passed since his resignation without further physical attacks on him or his family. Similarly, for CAT protection, the court ruled it was speculative to conclude he faced a risk of torture more than a decade later and found insufficient record evidence to support his conclusory claim that Mexican authorities acquiesced to such torture. Consequently, the petition is denied, leaving the agency’s order denying relief in place.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The eighth-circuit affirmed the defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining his prior Missouri conviction was for “Unlawful Use of a Weapon – Exhibiting” under § 571.030.1(4) and that this offense qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2(a). The court applied the modified categorical approach to identify the specific offense of conviction from a divisible statute, finding the district court’s determination plausible based on the amended information and guilty plea which closely tracked subdivision (4). Regarding the crime of violence classification, the court reviewed de novo but was bound by its prior panel decision in *United States v. Pulliam*, which held that exhibiting a weapon in an angry or threatening manner constitutes threatened use of physical force against another person. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in *Delligatti v. United States* rendered *Pulliam* inconsistent, noting that *Pulliam* already required the object of the force to be a person and that Missouri case law equates flourishing a weapon in the presence of others with an assault on those present. As a result, the defendant’s prior conviction was properly counted as a crime of violence, increasing his applicable Guidelines sentencing range, and the judgment of the district court stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Ninth Circuit denied the petitions for review seeking to overturn the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of a second motion to reopen removal proceedings based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), holding that the BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law in rejecting the motions. The court’s decision rests on three primary grounds. First, the BIA correctly determined that the second motion was numerically barred because it constituted a second attempt to reopen; under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an applicant is generally limited to filing only one motion to reopen, and motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel are properly deemed motions to reopen. Second, the court found no basis for equitable tolling of this numerical limit, as Petitioners failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing or showed due diligence, particularly given that the second motion was filed by the same counsel only nine days after the first and contained substantially similar arguments. Third, the BIA did not violate procedural due process by declining to consider the ineffective assistance claim because Petitioners failed to satisfy the threshold procedural requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada*, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). As a practical consequence, the petitions are denied, and the temporary stay of removal entered pursuant to General Order 6.4(c) is lifted effective immediately.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Lashawn Pullie’s conviction and sentence for drug trafficking and firearm charges. The court held that most of Pullie’s appellate issues were foreclosed by a valid and enforceable waiver included in his plea agreement. Regarding the remaining issues, the court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Consequently, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed without oral argument.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Manuela Mateo-Joaquin and her four children seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision based on two primary grounds. First, applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Mateo-Joaquin failed to establish past persecution on account of membership in the proposed social group of “Guatemalan women unable to leave a domestic relationship.” The court noted that the Immigration Judge and Board relied on Mateo-Joaquin’s own testimony indicating she could have left her former partner, meaning no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude she was unable to leave the relationship. Second, the court ruled that the Board did not err in declining to consider a claim based on the social group “Guatemalan women” because Mateo-Joaquin conceded that her former counsel failed to advance this specific argument before the Immigration Judge. Citing *Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-* and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that while the duty to develop the record applies to pro se applicants, it does not apply when an alien is represented by competent counsel who is responsible for advancing all facts and arguments entitling them to relief. Consequently, the petition was denied without reaching the merits of the unraised claim.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-11

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction enjoining South Dakota’s nine-month pre-election deadline for filing citizen petitions to enact state laws or amend the state constitution, holding that the deadline violates the First Amendment. Applying the *Anderson-Burdick* “sliding” scrutiny standard, the court concluded that while the deadline imposes a burden on citizens’ speech and association rights, the state failed to demonstrate that the nine-month requirement furthers an “important regulatory interest.” Although the state argued the deadline was necessary to allow time for private citizen litigation challenging petition validity before the general election to protect election integrity, the appellate court found no evidence in the record connecting the specific three-month extension from the previous six-month deadline to a meaningful increase in pre-election resolution of such challenges. The court noted that South Dakota law already permits courts to provide complete relief post-election and that the state’s own examples suggested litigation would likely continue past the general election regardless of the extended timeframe. Consequently, the burden on speech was not justified by the asserted interests, and the permanent injunction remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.