The case concerned Daniel O. Oyeniran, a Nigerian citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident facing removal, who sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture based on his fear of torture due to his father’s Christian activities opposing Sharia law, along with a motion to reopen proceedings with new evidence. The Ninth Circuit granted Oyeniran’s petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions denying CAT protection and the motion to reopen. The court held that collateral estoppel required the BIA to accept its prior findings that Islamic extremists had tortured Oyeniran’s family with the government’s acquiescence because of his father’s religious advocacy. It further ruled that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the case, because Oyeniran presented significant new evidence—an arrest warrant issued against him personally for opposing Sharia law—that he could not reasonably have obtained earlier. On remand, the BIA must evaluate all the evidence, using its prior factual findings as a baseline, to determine whether Oyeniran faces a greater than fifty percent chance of torture if returned to Nigeria.
The case involved the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton suing BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad over petroleum contamination that migrated onto a former rail property in Stockton through an underground french drain installed decades earlier by the railroads' predecessors during track relocation. The Ninth Circuit held that the railroads were not liable under common-law nuisance or California's Polanco Redevelopment Act. The court reasoned that the record showed no active or knowing causation of the contamination by the railroads, and that they were not "owners" under the Polanco Act's CERCLA-based provision because they held only an easement at the time of the spill and were not operators responsible for the release. The court therefore reversed summary judgment for the Agency on the nuisance and Water Code claims and remanded for entry of judgment for the railroads while affirming summary judgment for the railroads on the CERCLA-based claim.
The case involved an Indonesian citizen's petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, based on his daughter's past female genital mutilation in Indonesia without parental consent and his fear that his other daughter would face the same procedure if the family returned. The petitioner also claimed persecution due to his marriage to a Catholic woman. The BIA had denied relief, finding the procedure was a less severe form that did not qualify as persecution and rejecting the social group claim. The Ninth Circuit held that the BIA erred by failing to treat the mutilation as persecution under circuit precedent and by not considering the risk to the second daughter, while substantial evidence supported rejection of the social group persecution claim. The court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings.
This case involves a lawsuit by Nikki Pooshs against tobacco companies for personal injuries allegedly caused by smoking, including her terminal lung cancer, with claims including negligence, product liability, fraud, and conspiracy. The district court dismissed the claims as barred by the statute of limitations based on her earlier 1989 diagnosis of COPD and 1990 diagnosis of periodontal disease. The Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the California Supreme Court asking when separate physical injuries from the same wrongdoing may be viewed as invading different primary rights under California law and whether such injuries may be considered qualitatively different for purposes of when the limitations period begins to run. The court stayed all proceedings pending the state supreme court's answers, emphasizing that the outcome depends entirely on those responses.
This case concerns whether postal inspectors employed by the U.S. Postal Service are entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or instead are governed solely by the comparability pay requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 1003(c). The district court granted summary judgment to the Postal Service, holding that § 1003(c) permits availability pay modeled on the Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act rather than FLSA overtime. The Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling, reasoning that FLSA overtime presumptively applies to federal employees unless a specific exemption exists and that Congress did not explicitly repeal the FLSA when enacting § 1003(c). The court remanded for a determination of whether any comparable executive-branch employees receive FLSA overtime and whether the inspectors qualify for any FLSA exemption, while affirming the district court’s discovery order.
The case concerned whether private disability insurance benefits received by one of the debtors should be included in their current monthly income for purposes of the bankruptcy means test under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss the Chapter 7 petition, arguing that including the benefits created a presumption of abuse. The bankruptcy court agreed and dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on direct appeal. The court reasoned that the statutory definition of current monthly income encompasses all sources of income without regard to taxability, rejecting the debtors' argument to tie it to the Internal Revenue Code's definition of gross income.