AFP Foundation’s Ryan Mulvey explains the Ninth Circuit’s decision earlier this month in Murillo-Chavez v. Bondi:
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision earlier this month in Murillo-Chavez v. Bondi reflects a somewhat more nuanced approach, which arguably complements the position taken by one of my colleagues in response to Tennessee. The Bondi case concerned the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and its determination about whether a certain offense qualifies as “crime involving moral turpitude” (“CIMT”). The Ninth Circuit started by noting the obvious tension between Loper Bright’s instruction that a judge provide independent judgment about the best meaning of the law and the duty to afford stare decisis effect to the many Step Two cases involving past deference to BIA’s CIMT determination.
…
The Bondi court ultimately decided that, while existing precedent about the meaning of CIMT was relevant—and still good law—it was not binding, and its usefulness was limited in the face of the judges’ obligation to provide their independent judgment about legal meaning.”
