green
Positive treatment
Trending · 55 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
47.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 ·
…by entirely excluding a category of aliens from the ability to apply for adjustment, who by statute are eligible to apply for such relief, the regulation .
at p. 670
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Momin v. Gonzales
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
by entirely excluding a category of aliens from the ability to apply for adjustment, who by statute are eligible to apply for such relief, the regulation .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Momin v. Gonzales
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
by entirely excluding a category of aliens from the ability to apply for adjustment, who by statute are eligible to apply for such relief, the regulation .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Medina Tovar v. Laura Zuchowski
Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2006); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jorge Escamilla v. William Barr
Thus, the regulations treat him as an “arriving alien.” See also Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that “an alien paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (d) remains an ‘arriving alien’ regardless of her parole status”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ibrahim Bare v. William Barr
See Choin v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008) (considering the statutory scheme in interpreting the meaning of a term in the INA); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir. 2005) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sofokli Gazeli v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
See Scheerer v. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1320-22 (11th Cir. 2006); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 120 (3d Cir. 2005); Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 30 (1st Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Haridas Chakraborty v. Loretta E. Lynch
See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir.2006) (to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to file a brief to the BIA, a petitioner must “demonstrate plausible grounds for relief on his underlying claim” (citation omitted)); 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(4) (aliens arriving in the United States are ineligible for pre-conclusion voluntary departure); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-68 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting contention that petitioner was not an “arriving alien” where alien had been paroled).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. J.C. Billion, Inc.
Council, 467 U.S. 837 , 842-43 n. 9, 104 S. Ct. *302 2778, 2781 n. 9; Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Antonio Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
The BIA also correctly concluded that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s application for adjustment of status in conjunction with a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (h), because Rodriguez-Gutierrez was an arriving alien, see Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667 (9th Cir.2005), and he did not return to the United States through a grant of advanced parole in order to pursue a previously filed application for adjustment of status, as is required to trigger the IJ’s jurisdiction over adjustment applications filed by arriving…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aguilar-Navarrete v. Holder
They do not eliminate “statutory eligibility for such relief.” Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruiz-Diaz v. United States
Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466, 472 (9th Cir.2009); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Mukasey
We deny Ana and Maria’s petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of their motions for adjustment of status in light of Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-71 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Mukasey
We deny Ana and Maria’s petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of their motions for adjustment of status in light of Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-71 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalilu v. Mukasey
See Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 9 (1st Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119 (3d Cir. 2005); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir. 2005); Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1318 (11th Cir. 2006).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ordonez-Garay v. Mukasey
Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ceta v. Mukasey
See Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1322 (11th Cir.2006); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119-20 (3d Cir.2005); Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ceta, Pelivan v. Mukasey, Michael B.
The Interim Rule Notice recognized that four courts of appeals had struck down 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1 (c)(8) as inconsistent with INA § 245(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a),7 and it stated that the Interim Rule was intended 7 See Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1322 (11th Cir. 2006); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119-20 (3d Cir. 2005); Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brito v. Mukasey
See Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1322 (11th Cir.2006); Bona *166 v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119-20 (3d Cir.2005); Succar, 394 F.3d at 24 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalilu v. Mukasey
See Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.Bd 8, 9 (1st Cir.2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119 (3d Cir.2005); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005); Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1318 (11th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalilu v. Mukasey
See Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 9 (1st Cir.2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119 (3d Cir.2005); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005); Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1318 (11th Cir.2006).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Matovski v. Gonzales
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See Scheerer v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2006); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668-70 (9th Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119-120 (3d Cir. 2005); Succar v. Gonzales, 394 F.3d 8, 29 (1st Cir. 2005).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Matovski v. Gonzales
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
See Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney General, 445 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir.2006); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668-70 (9th Cir.2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 119-120 (3d Cir.2005); Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 29 (1st Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Akhtar v. Gonzales
We do not address the issue because Akhtar concedes on appeal that he is an arriving alien 12 See Succar, 394 F.3d at 13 . 13 See Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 19-20 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that we have jurisdiction); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 111 (3d Cir.2005) (same); Mouelle v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 923, 927-29 (8th Cir.2005) (assuming that we have jurisdiction); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-69 (9th Cir.2005) (same); Scheerer v. Attorney General, 445 F.3d 1311, 1318-22 (11th Cir.2006) (same). 14 We had cited the regulation in an unpublished opinion, where the petitioner never cha…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Akhtar v. Gonzales
See Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 19-20 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that we have jurisdiction); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 111 (3d Cir.2005) (same); Mouelle v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 923, 927-29 (8th Cir.2005) (assuming that we have jurisdiction); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-69 (9th Cir.2005) (same); Scheerer v. Attorney General, 445 F.3d 1311, 1318-22 (11th Cir.2006) (same). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geach v. Chertoff
(2×)
In Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir.2005), the Ninth Circuit "agree[d] with the analysis and holding of Succar [, stating] that because the `regulation redefines certain aliens as ineligible to apply for adjustment of status . . . whom a statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), defines as eligible to apply[,]' the regulation is invalid." (quoting Succar, 394 F.3d at 9 ). "[W]e agree with the First Circuit that Congress has spoken to the precise issue of who is eligible to apply for adjustment of status and that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (c)(8) is directly contrary to this Congressional determination…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Geach v. Tom Ridge
(4×)
In Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit “agree[d] with the analysis and holding of Succar[, stating] that because the ‘regulation redefines certain aliens as ineligible to apply for adjustment of status . . . whom a statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), defines as eligible to apply[,]’ the regulation is invalid.” (quoting Succar, 394 F.3d at 9 ). “[W]e agree with the First Circuit that Congress has spoken to the precise issue of who is eligible to apply for adjustment of status and that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (c)(8) is directly contrary to this Congressional det…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Juan Martinez Barroso v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
Our decision in Azarte illustrates why applying § 1003.2(f) so as to require the filing of a separate stay motion would “ere-ate[] absurd results when viewed in light of the larger statutory scheme.” Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez Barroso v. Gonzales
BARROSO v. GONZALES 15423 Our decision in Azarte illustrates why applying § 1003.2(f) so as to require the filing of a separate stay motion would “create[ ] absurd results when viewed in light of the larger statutory scheme.” Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Maria Medina Tovar v. Laura Zuchowski
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Maria Medina Tovar v. Laura Zuchowski
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir. 2005).
examined
Cited "see"
Lezama-Garcia v. Holder
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 669 (9th Cir. 2005) (invalidating a regulation that rendered an “arriv- ing alien” placed in removal proceedings ineligible for adjust- ment of status, where Congress had specifically allowed the aliens to adjust status if they met other qualifications); Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 26-29 (1st Cir. 2005) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney General
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir.2005); Succor v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.2005). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Danso v. Gonzales
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005) ("Although Congress delegated to the Attorney General the discretionary authority to grant or deny an application for an adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), Congress did not delegate to the Attorney General the discretion to choose who was eligible to apply for such relief.
cited
Cited "see"
Okechuku Agwara Uche v. Gonzales
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Raul Morales-Izquierdo v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
(2×)
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that a regulation that is contrary to statute is invalid).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales
(2×)
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a regulation that is contrary to statute is invalid).
discussed
Cited "see"
Germar Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney General
(2×)
Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 29 (1st Cir. 2005); accord Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 668-70 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Ali v. Gonzales
See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.2005) (‘We ... hold that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1 (c)(8) is invalid.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Lanny LYNCH, Defendant-Appellant
v.
John Lanny LYNCH, Defendant-Appellant
02-30216.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 23, 2005.
John A. Drennan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Bernard F. Hubley, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, Judy Clarke, Federal Defender, Roger J. Peven, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Schroeder.
Published
ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.