August 16, 2007 Ninth Circuit Opinions - Part I
On Thursday, August 16, the Ninth Circuit issues eight new published opinions. Four of them are provided here, and the other four will be addressed in the next post.
In U.S. v. Yida the Ninth Circuit held that the consideration of the reasonableness of the government’s efforts to procure a witness for trial must include action taken both before and after deportation, where the government knew of the desirability of the witness’s testimony prior to deportation. Here, the government’s decision to allow the witness to leave was not reasonable. Accordingly, the witness was not unavailable for FRE 804 purposes.
In Babasa v. Lencrafters, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a letter received for mediation purposes could serve as notice that the amount in controversy so as to begin the running of the time for removal.
In Lewis v. Astrue, the Ninth Circuit amended the opinion originally filed on July 3, 2007 to correct the identification of counsel for the appellee.
In Estrada-Espinoza v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit held that California’s statutory rape offense constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101, rendering Estrada-Espinoza removable as an “aggravated felon.” Judges Thomas and Leighton concur, finding as did the majority, Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F. 2d 1212 (9th Cir. 2006) controlling, but asserting that Affridi was wrongly decided, as the California statutory rape offenses do not require “abuse” to have occurred. California’s age of consent is 18. Here, the minor in question was “15 or 16” at the beginning of the relationship, which was live-in, and was conducted with knowledge of the parents of both parties and lasted for several years.
