Ortiz v. Sessions

Decision Date30 May 2017
Docket NumberNo. 17-16014,17-16014
Citation857 F.3d 966 (Mem)
Parties Andres Magana ORTIZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; et al., Respondents–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
ORDER

The emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied.

The briefing schedule established in the court's May 17, 2017 scheduling order continues to apply to this appeal.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring.

We are compelled to deny Mr. Magana Ortiz's request for a stay of removal because we do not have the authority to grant it. We are not, however, compelled to find the government's action in this case fair or just.

The government's insistence on expelling a good man from the country in which he has lived for the past 28 years deprives his children of their right to be with their father, his wife of her right to be with her husband, and our country of a productive and responsible member of our community. Magana Ortiz, who first entered the United States at 15, is now 43 years old, and during his almost three decades here has raised a family and built a successful life. All of his children, ages 12, 14, and 20, were born in this country and are American citizens, as is his wife. His eldest daughter currently attends the University of Hawaii, and he is paying for her education.

Since coming to the United States, Magana Ortiz has become a respected businessman in Hawaii and well established in the coffee farming industry. He has worked with the United States Department of Agriculture in researching the pests afflicting Hawaii's coffee crop, and agreed to let the government use his farm, without charge, to conduct a five-year study. In his time in this country Magana Ortiz has built a house, started his own company, and paid his taxes. Although he apparently has two convictions for driving under the influence, the latest of them occurred fourteen years ago, and he has no history of any other crimes. Indeed, even the government conceded during the immigration proceedings that there was no question as to Magana Ortiz's good moral character.1

After his immigration case concluded with a decision to remove Magana Ortiz because of his 1989 illegal entry into the United States, he filed for a stay of removal in September 2014. That stay was granted, allowing him to remain with his family and pursue available routes to legal status. On November 2, 2016, Magana Ortiz filed for an additional stay of removal. Without any explanation, the government on March 21, 2017 reversed its position, and ordered him to report for removal the next month. A subsequent application for a stay was similarly denied, and on May 10, 2017, Magana Ortiz went to the district court, where he filed an emergency request for a stay of removal for a period of nine months. That request was denied, and on May 17, 2017, he appealed to this court to intervene.

Magana Ortiz now asks us to stay his imminent removal. Because we are without authority to do so, he will be returned to Mexico, after having spent 28 years successfully building a life and family in this country. He will also be subject to a ten-year bar against his return, likely forcing him to spend a decade deprived of his wife, children, and community.

This was not the necessary result. Magana Ortiz is currently attempting to obtain legal status on the basis of his wife's and children's citizenship, a process that is well underway. It has been over a year since his wife, Brenda, submitted her application to have Magana Ortiz deemed her immediate relative. This August, his eldest daughter, Victoria, will turn 21, and will also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Alam v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 9 Mayo 2018
    ...opposite. This Court is not "compelled to find the government's action in this case fair or just." Cf. Ortiz v. Sessions , 857 F.3d 966, 967 (9th Cir. 2017) (Reinhardt, J., concurring). But it is compelled to find it lawful.Grateful for the efforts of the parties and amici, mindful of the m......
  • Carrasco-Ibarra v. Sessions
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 9 Mayo 2018
    ...any enforcement benefit in this case. That is why "I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not." Magana Ortiz v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 966, 968 (9th. Cir. 2017) (Reinhardt, J., concurring). *. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Nin......
  • United States v. Canales, 16-3087
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 1 Junio 2017

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT