Barry Reynolds v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Barry Reynolds v. Loretta E. Lynch

628 F. App'x 497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 31, 2015

Docket12-55675

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 628 F. App'x 497 (Barry Reynolds v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barry Reynolds v. Loretta E. Lynch, 628 F. App'x 497 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

1. Barry Reynolds raises a number of reasons-why United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should have concluded that he “pose[d] no risk” to his spouse. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Because a no-risk determination is committed to the “sole and unreviewable discretion” of the Secretary of Homeland Security, we can’t address these claims. Id.; id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

2. Reynolds claims that the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (AWA) doesn’t apply to him because the AWA can’t attach a new disability to his 1994 conviction. But the AWA “address[es] dangers that arise post-enactment” and therefore “do[es] not operate retroactively.” Cf. Vartelas v. Holder, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 1489 n. 7, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012).

3. The district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Reynolds’s claim that the application of the AWA unconstitutionally burdens his fundamental right to marry. See Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that “district courts have jurisdiction to hear cases challenging final agency determinations ... made on nondiscretionary grounds”); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that unconstitutional decisions cannot be “discretionary”). We remand for the district court to consider Reynolds’s constitutional claim in the first instance.

AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part. No costs.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

1. Barry Reynolds raises a number of reasons-why United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should have concluded that he “pose[d] no risk” to his spouse. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Because a no-risk determination is committed to the “sole and unreviewable discretion” of the Secretary of Homeland Security, we can’t address these claims. Id.; id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

2. Reynolds claims that the 2006 Adam Walsh Act (AWA) doesn’t apply to him because the AWA can’t attach a new disability to his 1994 conviction. But the AWA “address[es] dangers that arise post-enactment” and therefore “do[es] not operate retroactively.” Cf. Vartelas v. Holder, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 1489 n. 7, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012).

3. The district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Reynolds’s claim that the application of the AWA unconstitutionally burdens his fundamental right to marry. See Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that “district courts have jurisdiction to hear cases challenging final agency determinations ... made on nondiscretionary grounds”); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that unconstitutional decisions cannot be “discretionary”). We remand for the district court to consider Reynolds’s constitutional claim in the first instance.

AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part. No costs.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

628 F. App'x 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-reynolds-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack