§

Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions

857 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2017)
Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Ramirez-Aleman

    21cr3403-BEN (S.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Because Petitioner's equal protection fails under the ordinary rational basis test, this case provides no reason to question that longstanding approach.” 857 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Six years

  2. Marquez-Reyes v. Garland

    36 F.4th 1195 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining that Hansen doesn't apply to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(E), which affects any alien who "knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien" to enter the country illegally

    We review de novo whether the statute is constitutional. Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions , 857 F.3d 1042, 1045–46 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Marquez-Reyes does not argue that he engaged in constitutionally protected speech, such that applying the statute to him would violate the First Amendment.

  3. Cardenas v. Garland

    No. 23-2580 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025)

    would have fair notice" from the statute that Petitioner faces expedited removal to his native country pursuant to § 1228(b)(1). Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

  4. Higuera v. Martinez

    3:23-cv-1083-BTM-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2024)

    See Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h). The distinction made by the California Legislature between individuals who must serve their sentences in county jail as opposed to state prison bears a rational relationship to its legitimate government interests in improving public safety (and health) by avoiding overcrowded state prisons while also saving taxpayer money. See e.g. Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating the government has a legitimate interest in public safety). For his part, Petitioner has failed “to negative” these conceivable bases for the distinction and therefore fails to show an equal protection violation. See Armour, 566 U.S. at 681; see also Mason v. Holt, 2016 WL 6136076, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2016)

  5. Emami v. Nielsen

    365 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability did not bar review of plaintiffs' claims that the government had failed to follow its own guidelines in adjudicating waiver applications

    The Court also notes, without firmly deciding the question at this time, that the equal protection claim would likely be subject to rational basis review. SeeLedezma-Cosino v. Sessions , 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017).

  6. Singh v. Cissna

    Case No. 1:18-cv-00782-SKO (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 326 (1980). See Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017); Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We review equal protection challenges to federal immigration laws under the rational basis standard . . . ."). "A legislative classification must be wholly irrational to violate equal protection."