Zhanling Jiang, a native of China, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld an immigration judge’s denial of his application to adjust status as the unmarried son of a U.S. citizen, along with related claims for asylum and other relief. The immigration judge had rejected two Chinese government documents proving Jiang was single because they lacked U.S. consular authentication under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 and had denied a continuance to obtain that authentication. The court held that the agency erred: foreign documents in immigration proceedings may be authenticated by any recognized method, including the petitioner’s own testimony, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(2) permits an attested summary without final certification. It further found the denial of a continuance unreasonable because Jiang received no advance notice that only consular certification would suffice and promptly obtained the certification once the stricter requirement was announced. The Ninth Circuit therefore granted the petition as to the adjustment-of-status claim and remanded for further proceedings, without reaching Jiang’s other claims.
The case involved Santiago Lopez, a rehabilitated former drug addict, who sued Pacific Maritime Association under the ADA and California's FEHA after PMA's "one-strike" policy permanently barred him from longshore work for testing positive on a pre-employment drug screen in 1997; he had reapplied in 2004 after achieving sobriety but was rejected without exception. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for PMA, rejecting both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims. On disparate treatment, the court held that the uniformly applied policy did not single out rehabilitated addicts or reflect intentional discrimination. On disparate impact, the court ruled that Lopez had not presented statistical evidence demonstrating that the policy disproportionately screened out rehabilitated addicts relative to other applicants, and that such evidence is required to establish a prima facie case.
The case involved Abdullah al-Kidd suing former Attorney General John Ashcroft over claims that Ashcroft's policies led to al-Kidd's detention under a material witness warrant without probable cause for criminal charges. The Ninth Circuit, acting on remand from the Supreme Court, reversed the district court's denial of Ashcroft's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The reversal followed directly from the Supreme Court's opinion in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, which held that the Attorney General was entitled to qualified immunity. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that Supreme Court decision.
The case involved Christian student fraternities and sororities at San Diego State University that required members to affirm Christian beliefs, challenging the university's nondiscrimination policy that conditioned official recognition on allowing all students to join regardless of religion, sexual orientation, or other protected categories. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Ninth Circuit held that the narrower nondiscrimination policy was constitutional because it was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum and did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court further concluded that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the policy had been selectively enforced against them in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
In United States v. Ewing, the defendant was charged with counterfeiting currency under federal law after an officer stopped a vehicle with an expired registration, learned that a passenger was on parole subject to search conditions, observed folded bills partially hidden in the door weatherstripping, and unfolded them to reveal matching serial numbers indicating they were counterfeit. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked probable cause for the search and examination in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the totality of circumstances—including the parole status, the suspicious hiding of the bills, and the officer's experience with drug-related concealment—established probable cause to search the car for contraband. The court further reasoned that unfolding the bills did not require separate probable cause because they fell within the scope of the justified search for evidence of criminal activity.
The case involved Zhi Yong Guo, a Chinese national, who was convicted by a jury of knowingly and willfully conspiring to export and attempting to export ten thermal imaging cameras to China without obtaining the required license from the Department of Commerce, in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705. Guo appealed, contending that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and thus violated due process. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute and its detailed implementing export regulations, considered together, provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and allow for principled enforcement. The court further noted that the statute's scienter requirement, which obligates the government to prove the defendant knew a license was needed and intended to violate the law, alleviates vagueness concerns.
criminal lawfederal power
Affiliations
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — appointed by Jimmy Carter
