Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
"[W]e take heart from the fact that the only other circuit to have considered the competing factors at play in a case like our own has reached the same judgment we do. In Acosta-Olivarria, the Ninth Circuit employed its version of the Stewart Capital factors and refused to allow the BIA to apply Briones retroactively to a petitioner who sought adjustment of status prior to that decision and after (and in reliance on) that circuit’s counterpart to Padilla-Caldera I. See Acosta-Olivarria, 799 F.3d at 1272. So it is that, in the end, the BIA’s decision to apply Briones retroactively to Mr. De Niz Robles finds no support in our examination of the principles underlying the law of retroactivity, in Supreme Court or circuit precedent, or in relevant authority from other jurisdictions. The petition for review is granted and the case remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." - De Niz Robles v. Lynch, Oct. 20, 2015.
Hats way off to Laura Lichter and Mark Barr!