Mojica v. Holder

1 Citing case

  1. Lemus v. Lynch

    842 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    In fact, we have subsequently applied it retroactively to nine other individuals as well. See Santos–Martinez v. Lynch , 620 Fed.Appx. 586 (9th Cir. 2015) ; Sanchez–Cortes v. Holder , 579 Fed.Appx. 550 (9th Cir. 2014);Sanchez v. Holder , 567 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2014) ; Martinez–Escalera v. Holder , 555 Fed.Appx. 695 (9th Cir. 2014) ; Paez–Carrasco v. Holder , 544 Fed.Appx. 789 (9th Cir. 2013) ; De Zavala v. Holder , 492 Fed.Appx. 821 (9th Cir. 2012) ; Mojica v. Holder , 689 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Pimentel–Ornelas v. Holder , 475 Fed.Appx. 223 (9th Cir. 2012) ; Parra Camacho v. Holder , 478 Fed.Appx. 431 (9th Cir. 2012).Having applied the Montgomery Ward factors and concluded that they favor retroactive application of Martinez Gutierrez , we should note that, even under Chevron Oil , the argument favoring a prospective-only application would be a very hard sell. Significantly, Judge Graber, who wrote the majority opinion in Nunez–Reyes favoring prospective application in that case, submitted a short, separate opinion in Garfias–Rodriguez , taking the position in that case that retroactive application would be appropriate under either Chevron Oil or Montgomery Ward. Garfias–Rodriguez , 702 F.3d at 534.