���Ӷ���Ƶ

Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland

Filing Date: 06-20-2023

“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under” immigration laws governing the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). “Judgment,” interpreted as “any authoritative decision,” “is the only [interpretation] that fits § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s text and context.” Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:

• Immigration

In re: Klamath Irrigation District v. U.S.D.C. Or. Medford

Filing Date: 06-05-2023

The Court applies the “Bauman factors,” in determining whether mandamus is warranted: (1) whether the petitioner has “no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal,” to attain the desired relief, (2) whether “[t]he petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal,” (3) whether the “district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law,” (4) whether the order makes an “oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules,” and (5) whether the order raises “new and important problems” or legal issues of first impression. Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977). A clear error requires “firm conviction” that the district court “misinterpreted the law” or “committed a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Perez, 749 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2014).

Area(s) of Law:

• Civil Procedure