Case: Adrian Cabrera Espinoza v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, No. 25A1027
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-03-18
Status: Application
Question Presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of Petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings when the Board applied an incorrect legal standard—the "reasonable likelihood the new evidence will change the result" standard—rather than the correct statutory standard for Convention Against Torture protection, and whether the application of a statutory legal standard to established facts constitutes a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
On March 18, 2026, attorney Mario Alberto Valenzuela submitted an application to Justice Kagan seeking a stay of removal for Adrian Cabrera Espinoza. The application, filed directly with the Supreme Court, asks the Court to halt Espinoza’s removal while he pursues further review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals. The case is now on the Supreme Court’s public docket.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA’s denial of Espinoza’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Espinoza had sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that new evidence warranted reconsideration. The BIA denied the motion under a “reasonable likelihood the new evidence will change the result” standard, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.
Espinoza contends that standard is legally incorrect. The proper inquiry for CAT protection, he argues, is a distinct statutory standard, and the BIA’s substitution of a different threshold constituted legal error. He further argues that applying a legal standard to established facts is a mixed question of law and fact, which falls within the judicial review preserved by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) even where factual findings are otherwise unreviewable. Attorney D. John Sauer represents the government in opposition.
The case illustrates a recurring tension in immigration law between the scope of judicial review and the deference afforded to agency adjudications. Whether Justice Kagan grants the stay, refers the application to the full Court, or denies it outright will signal how receptive the Court is to arguments that BIA legal-standard errors remain cognizable under § 1252(a)(2)(D). Practitioners handling CAT motions to reopen should watch this application closely.