Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Lety Diego Diego and her minor sons seeking asylum and withholding of removal based on past persecution by a private actor in Guatemala. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to dismiss the appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying relief, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the Guatemalan government was not unwilling or unable to control the abuser. The court applied the standard of review where factual findings are examined for clear error and legal questions de novo, determining that the BIA’s reliance on the IJ’s reasoning was proper. Specifically, the court held that Diego Diego failed to meet her burden because she provided only speculative testimony and anecdotal hearsay regarding the futility of reporting her ex-partner to authorities, lacking objective corroboration. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence in country condition reports demonstrating Guatemala’s efforts to combat violence against women, including specialized courts, victim service centers, and a national alert system, which indicated the government was capable of controlling non-state actors. As a result of this affirmation, the petition is denied, and the BIA’s order dismissing Diego Diego’s application for asylum and withholding of removal remains in effect, leaving her subject to removal proceedings.

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: 2026-06-30

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing the brothers’ appeals from an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the petitioners forfeited their challenge to the finding that they failed to establish persecution by forces the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to control because they did not specifically and distinctly argue this dispositive issue in their opening brief. Consequently, their claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail as a matter of law. Regarding CAT relief, the court applied the substantial evidence standard and found that the record supported the agency’s conclusion that the petitioners failed to show it was more likely than not they would be tortured by government consent or acquiescence, noting that harm inflicted by their aunt or potential recruitment by gangs does not meet the statutory definition of torture under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 and § 1208.18. The practical consequence is that the petition is denied, leaving the removal order 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Anibal Berduo Castillo and his family seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the petitioners forfeited their challenge to the immigration judge’s determination regarding the Guatemalan government’s ability or willingness to protect them from gang violence because they failed to meaningfully address this dispositive issue in their administrative brief. Regarding the CAT claim, the court applied the substantial evidence standard and found that the record did not compel a conclusion that the petitioners would more likely than not be tortured upon return to Guatemala, noting that their specific history of threats and extortion, combined with generalized country conditions evidence, was insufficient to meet the required likelihood standard. Consequently, the petition is denied and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing their appeal 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied Pavel Kuzin’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a de novo standard to legal determinations and a substantial evidence standard to factual findings. The court held that the BIA correctly declined to consider Kuzin’s group-based theories of future persecution (specifically “pattern or practice” or “disfavored group” theories) because he failed to raise them before the immigration judge. Although represented by counsel, Kuzin did not use the requisite legal terminology or present evidence supporting these specific theories in his brief, testimony, or closing statement prior to the BIA appeal. Additionally, the court declined to address Kuzin’s procedural arguments regarding corroborating evidence under *Ren v. Holder* and his challenges to the denial of withholding of removal and CAT claims because he failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA, rendering them unexhausted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Finally, the court found no error in the Agency’s factual determination that Kuzin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, noting that the presumption that the Agency reviewed all relevant evidence was not overcome by Kuzin’s arguments regarding the weighing of his wife’s declaration and social media screenshots. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, leaving the BIA’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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

Docket: 2:21-cv-01228-SRB

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a pro se civil rights action brought by an Arizona state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his health and safety. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claim because Hunter failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and failed to demonstrate that those remedies were effectively unavailable. In reaching this conclusion, the court applied the standard of review de novo and relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that exhaustion demands strict compliance with agency deadlines and procedural rules, noting only limited circumstances where remedies are deemed unavailable or the continuing-violations doctrine applies. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Hunter’s motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion since he failed to set forth a basis for relief, and rejected his contention regarding admonishment for personal attacks against opposing counsel as arguments not properly raised in the opening brief. As a result, the judgment in favor of the defendants stands, and the case is closed without further proceedings on the merits.

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: 2026-06-30

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Saul Rodriguez Pineda’s conviction for distributing methamphetamine, holding that the district court correctly declined to provide a jury instruction on the defense of duress. The court applied the four-element legal test for duress under Eighth Circuit precedent, requiring a defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) an unlawful, present, imminent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) that the defendant did not recklessly place themselves in the situation; (3) no reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law; and (4) a direct causal relationship between the criminal act and the avoidance of harm. The court determined that Pineda failed to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy these elements, particularly regarding immediacy and the lack of a legal alternative. The opinion noted that the alleged threats occurred months before the controlled drug sales and were not connected to the specific criminal conduct charged. Furthermore, the court found that Pineda had a reasonable legal alternative because he spent nearly three weeks alone at the residence without supervision, providing ample opportunity to contact law enforcement or flee safely. Consequently, the conviction stands, and Pineda remains subject to the sentence imposed by the district 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: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied Yanging Zhang’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision rejecting her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a substantial evidence standard to the agency’s adverse credibility determination, finding that Zhang’s testimony contained significant inconsistencies across different stages of proceedings—ranging from her initial statements to CBP agents to her later claims before the immigration judge—that supported a finding of fabrication or embellishment. The court held that these evolving accounts justified the denial of asylum and withholding of removal because, without credible testimony, Zhang could not meet her burden of proof. Regarding her CAT claim, the court ruled that even assuming country conditions evidence showed general violence against house church members, the lack of credible individualized testimony meant there was no substantial evidence to compel a conclusion that she faced a particularized risk of torture. Consequently, the petition for review is denied, and any pending motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.

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: 2026-06-30

The eighth-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appealed orders were non-final and not immediately reviewable. The court held that it lacks authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to hear an interlocutory appeal regarding the consolidation of actions, noting the notice of appeal was also untimely as it failed to meet the 30-day filing requirement under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Additionally, the court ruled that it cannot review the order compelling arbitration and staying the actions, citing 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1), which prohibits appeals from interlocutory orders granting stays pending arbitration, and affirmed that such orders are not final decisions under the collateral-order doctrine as established in *Webb v. Farmers of N. Am., Inc.*. The court further declined to treat the jurisdictionally defective appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s consolidation order, arbitration stay, and denial of the motion to amend complaints in effect while the underlying case proceeds in the District 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Deangelo Terrell Banks’s conviction for possessing a firearm while a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying Banks’s motion to suppress the handgun or his motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. Regarding the suppression motion, the court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. First, the court found no clear error in the district court’s credibility determination that the arresting officer reasonably suspected a traffic violation (failure to signal) despite the officer’s inability to specify exact distances or blink counts; the officer’s familiarity with the area and testimony regarding street lighting were sufficient. Second, the court held that Banks forfeited his argument that officers unreasonably prolonged the stop to wait for a drug-sniffing dog because he failed to raise this specific ground in his motion to suppress as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c)(3). Even absent forfeiture, the court found no error, noting that while the defendant was on the phone obtaining updated insurance information, the officers’ brief questioning did not delay those efforts. Third, regarding probable cause for the search, the court applied the standard from *Florida v. Harris*, holding that a certified drug-sniffing dog’s alert establishes probable cause regardless of whether drugs are subsequently found, and Banks failed to present evidence challenging the dog’s training or reliability. Regarding sufficiency of the evidence, the court reviewed the record de novo in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if any rational trier of fact could find the elements of constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed, including Banks’s exclusive control over the vehicle where the gun was hidden, his listing as a co-owner on the registration, his prior false statements to police claiming sole ownership of the car’s contents, and his incriminating jail phone calls suggesting he knew about the contraband. The practical consequence is that the judgment of conviction stands, and Banks remains subject to the sentence imposed by the district 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: 2026-06-30

Docket: 3:24-cv-04081-VC

The ninth-circuit dismissed Solar Mosaic’s appeal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings due to unresolved mootness issues arising from the appellant’s bankruptcy. The court determined that while Solar Mosaic argued in its reply brief that the case was moot because its Chapter 11 plan provided for liquidation rather than reorganization, these factual questions were highly complex and had not yet been fully addressed by the parties or the lower court. Specifically, the panel noted that Plaintiffs lacked a full opportunity to respond to these new arguments regarding the company’s wind-down status and its impact on the plaintiffs’ ability to seek public injunctive relief. Consequently, the appellate court declined to adjudicate the mootness claim itself, instead directing the district court to consider the new facts, determine whether discovery is necessary, address any potential mootness issues, or entertain a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

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