Cases That Shape Immigration Law

No. 19-73085 (9th Cir. 2021) · Cite: 17 F.4th 869

Outcome: Petition granted; remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero (argued), Novo Legal Group PLLC, Kent, Washington; Elaine Ruth Fordyce, Law Office of Shara Svendsen PLLC, Mill Creek, Washington.

What this case shaped. The Ninth Circuit held that a defective Notice to Appear — and a later final order of removal — cannot retroactively trigger the "stop-time rule" that cuts off eligibility for cancellation of removal. The decision sits in the line running through Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which addresses how the document-service triggers under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) actually work; it does not address the separate criminal-conviction trigger under the same provision. It is the firm's first verified published Ninth Circuit caption.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit official PDF (opens in new tab)

No. 3:17-cv-05380-WHA (N.D. Cal., before Judge Alsup); plaintiffs became respondents in DHS v. Regents (No. 18-587 SCOTUS)

Outcome: Nationwide preliminary injunction issued (Jan. 9, 2018) requiring DHS to maintain DACA; APA and Fifth Amendment due-process claims sustained on the government's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court in DHS v. Regents (2020).

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, counsel of record for the DACA-recipient plaintiffs (Dulce Garcia and five co-plaintiffs), Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center PLLC, Kent, Washington (predecessor practice — pre-Novo).

What this case shaped. Garcia is one of five consolidated Northern District of California cases that produced the first nationwide order requiring the federal government to keep accepting DACA renewals after the 2017 rescission. It is also the only one of the five where DACA recipients themselves were named plaintiffs — not states, not universities, but the people whose status was on the line. That through-line is what carried the litigation to the Supreme Court.

Read the opinion: N.D. Cal. PDF (Govinfo) (opens in new tab)

140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020); Nos. 18-587, 18-588, 18-589

Outcome: Precedent decision. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that the Department of Homeland Security's 2017 rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, co-counsel on the merits brief for the DACA Recipient Respondents, Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center PLLC, Kent, Washington (predecessor practice — pre-Novo). Theodore B. Olson was counsel of record and argued the case; Luis sat second chair at counsel table.

What this case shaped. Regents is the modern foundation for arguing that an agency cannot wind down a major immigration program without explaining itself in real terms. Beyond DACA, it is the case lower courts now cite when DHS tries to undo a long-running program by press release.

Read the opinion: Supreme Court PDF (opens in new tab)

No. 20-70187 (9th Cir. 2021), for publication

Outcome: Mixed result — petition dismissed in part, granted in part; remanded.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, sole counsel of record for the petitioner; submitted on the briefs (no oral argument). Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center PLLC, Kent, Washington (predecessor practice — filed roughly five weeks before our first verified Novo Legal Group caption).

What this case shaped. The Ninth Circuit held that the Board of Immigration Appeals had violated due process by summarily dismissing an appeal in withholding-only proceedings without explaining itself — and remanded for the BIA to take another look. At the same time, the panel held it had no jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack on the underlying removal order. Nolasco-Amaya is what a real mixed result looks like: a procedural win on the due-process issue the BIA tried to short-cut, paired with a hard jurisdictional limit on what the federal courts can revisit at the petition-for-review stage.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

No. 19-9512 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2019), unpublished order and judgment, citable for persuasive value under 10th Cir. R. 32.1

Outcome: Petition granted; remanded to the immigration judge for further proceedings.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, counsel of record for petitioner (entered appearance April 1, 2019); Ricardo Vasquez, co-counsel for petitioner. Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado.

Co-counsel attribution and firm affiliation as reproduced on the FindLaw cover-sheet of the opinion; the official Tenth Circuit order and judgment does not contain a counsel block. PACER-sourced docket snapshot independently confirms Aaron Elinoff's April 1, 2019 entry of appearance for the petitioner.

What this case shaped. Flores-Castillo is a Tenth Circuit application of the principle that an immigration judge retains authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) to reopen and reissue a prior decision in a case where jurisdiction has not vested with the Board — including, as here, where lead counsel conceded ineffective assistance after missing the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review. The Tenth Circuit additionally held that the agency cannot defend such a denial on alternative grounds the immigration judge never relied on. It is the earliest verified Novo Legal Group appellate appearance; the firm's first verified published appellate caption remains Quebrado Cantor v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021).

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit order and judgment (Govinfo) (opens in new tab)

944 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2019); No. 18-9511, for publication

Outcome: Petition denied in part; dismissed in part. The Tenth Circuit upheld the agency's conclusion that the petitioner's prior conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude that barred cancellation of removal, and dismissed an unexhausted Pereira argument on jurisdictional grounds.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff (argued for petitioner); Danielle C. Jefferis (with him on the supplemental brief). Elinoff & Associates, Denver, Colorado (predecessor practice — petition and opening brief filed before the 2018 merger that formed Novo Legal Group).

What this case shaped. The categorical-approach holding stands. But the jurisdictional half of the opinion has not aged the same way: in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411 (2023), the Supreme Court held that the INA's exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional — the very framework the Tenth Circuit used to dismiss the Pereira argument here. Years later, in Santos-Zacaria, the Supreme Court reframed the procedural rule the panel used here — though our client's underlying ineligibility for cancellation, based on the categorical analysis of the conviction, was not disturbed. That, too, is part of how appellate practice works: an argument about how a court should reach an issue can outlast the case it was raised in.

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit PDF (Govinfo) (opens in new tab)

No. 18-9531 (10th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019), unpublished Order and Judgment, citable for persuasive value under 10th Cir. R. 32.1

Outcome: Petition for review denied. The Tenth Circuit upheld the agency's application of the § 1231(a)(5) reinstatement bar.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, sole appellate counsel of record for petitioner. Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado.

What this case shaped. Carrington is one of a series of Tenth Circuit Aaron Elinoff–led petitions for review that worked through how the § 1231(a)(5) reinstatement statute interacts with the agency's removability findings — a recurring posture in cancellation and withholding cases out of Colorado immigration court. The panel (McHugh, Baldock, O'Brien; opinion by McHugh) denied the petition; the analysis joins the body of Tenth Circuit reinstatement decisions that frame how subsequent petitioners have to litigate the issue.

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit Order and Judgment (FindLaw) (opens in new tab)

No. 19-9507 (10th Cir. Feb. 3, 2020), unpublished Order and Judgment, citable for persuasive value under 10th Cir. R. 32.1

Outcome: Petition for review denied. The Tenth Circuit rejected a Pereira-based notice-to-appear jurisdiction challenge under Lopez-Munoz v. Barr (10th Cir. 2019).

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, sole appellate counsel of record for petitioner. Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado.

What this case shaped. The panel (Lucero, Baldock, Moritz; opinion by Moritz) held that the Board of Immigration Appeals had sua sponte exhausted the Pereira jurisdictional issue despite the petitioner's appeal waiver — a procedural ruling that has shaped how Tenth Circuit petitioners and the agency frame exhaustion of NTA-defect arguments in subsequent cases. The underlying Pereira argument failed on the merits under Lopez-Munoz; the procedural-exhaustion framing is what the case adds to the body of Tenth Circuit removal-defense decisions.

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit Order and Judgment (Justia) (opens in new tab)

No. 19-9568 (10th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020), unpublished revised Order and Judgment superseding the withdrawn Jan. 22, 2020 order on petition for rehearing; citable for persuasive value under 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Public sanctuary period: Park Hill United Methodist Church / Temple Micah, beginning December 10, 2019; announced publicly February 11, 2020.

Outcome: Petition for rehearing granted in part — the Tenth Circuit panel modified its January 22, 2020 Order and Judgment and reissued a revised opinion on April 7, 2020. The underlying petition for review was denied on the merits; the BIA's affirmance of the immigration judge's continuance denial and dismissal of cancellation-of-removal was upheld on abuse-of-discretion review.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, sole appellate counsel of record for petitioner (filed the initiating Tenth Circuit petition for review and the petition for rehearing); Bryce Downer, co-counsel quoted as Mr. Araiza Avila's attorney at the February 11, 2020 sanctuary press conference and engaged with the client on parallel U-visa and sanctuary strategy. Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado.

What this case shaped. Mr. Araiza Avila and his family took sanctuary at Park Hill United Methodist Church / Temple Micah on December 10, 2019, after a routine ICE check-in indicated immediate deportation risk. Mr. Araiza Avila announced the sanctuary publicly at a February 11, 2020 press conference hosted by Sanctuary4All and the Metro Denver Sanctuary Coalition; his wife Alexandra Sandoval and the family's three children later joined him at the church. ICE labeled Mr. Araiza Avila a "wanted fugitive" and alleged Sureno 13 gang affiliation. Both Aaron Elinoff and Bryce Downer of Novo Legal Group publicly denied the gang allegation and argued — at the immigration-court level and in public statements — that the juvenile-court proceedings reflected in Mr. Araiza Avila's record were not "convictions" as federal immigration law uses that term. (Under controlling Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, juvenile-court delinquency adjudications are generally treated as something other than "convictions" for removability purposes — see Matter of Devison-Charles, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000) — while adult convictions for offenses committed as a juvenile are handled differently; the analysis is fact-specific to how a particular adjudication was prosecuted.) As of February 2020, Colorado had four people in sanctuary: Ms. Encalada de la Torre in Boulder, Ms. Rosa Sabido in Mancos (deported late 2019), Ms. Vizguerra in Denver, and Mr. Araiza Avila in Denver. Three of the four — Ms. Encalada de la Torre, Ms. Vizguerra, and Mr. Araiza Avila — were represented by Novo Legal Group during the relevant period.

On the appellate side: an immigration judge had denied Mr. Araiza Avila's request for a continuance and dismissed his application for cancellation of removal; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed; the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review on the merits in its initial January 22, 2020 Order and Judgment. Mr. Elinoff petitioned for rehearing. The Tenth Circuit panel withdrew its initial order, modified its analysis, and reissued a revised Order and Judgment on April 7, 2020 — a rehearing-granted-in-part posture that is uncommon at the Tenth Circuit and that goes to how continuance-denial review reads in cancellation-of-removal cases. The merits result was adverse to the client; the procedural disposition — moving a federal appellate panel to revise its own opinion — is its own form of appellate work that does not always show up in win/loss counts. The matter is publicly known in Colorado as one of the major Denver sanctuary cases of the 2019–2020 period, not just as an appellate loss.

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit Order and Judgment (Justia) (opens in new tab). See also Denver Post 2020-02-11 — sanctuary press conference and statewide-sanctuary roster for the public sanctuary record.

No. 20-9611 (10th Cir. Aug. 20, 2021), unpublished Order and Judgment, citable for persuasive value under 10th Cir. R. 32.1

Outcome: Petition for review denied in part and dismissed in part. The Tenth Circuit reached cancellation-of-removal, good-moral-character, false-testimony, stop-time, and new-evidence-remand issues.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, petitioner's counsel. Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado.

What this case shaped. Marmolejo reaches a cluster of Tenth Circuit cancellation-of-removal issues at once — good moral character, false-testimony bars, the stop-time rule, and the standard for moving the court to remand on new evidence. The panel (Tymkovich, CJ, with Kelly and Holmes; opinion by Tymkovich) denied in part and dismissed in part. The case is a worked example of how multi-issue cancellation appeals look in the Tenth Circuit, where the standard of review on each issue differs.

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit Order and Judgment (Justia) (opens in new tab)

159 F.4th 1210 (10th Cir. 2025); No. 24-9522, for publication

Outcome: Petition denied. The Tenth Circuit upheld the agency's negative good-moral-character determination based on a recidivist 2017 DUI (a fourth conviction); cancellation of removal denied.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero and Amy Rubenstein, on the briefs for petitioner (submitted on the briefs — no oral argument). Novo Legal Group, LLC, Denver, Colorado.

What this case shaped. Luna-Corona is one of the Tenth Circuit's recent applications of the INA's good-moral-character framework to cancellation-of-removal petitioners with recidivist criminal histories. On the facts here — a fourth DUI conviction, recent in time — the agency's negative good-moral-character determination foreclosed cancellation relief. The case is a worked example of how the INA's good-moral-character analysis interacts with a recidivist record; it is not a general rule that every DUI history forecloses cancellation, and the analysis is fact-specific.

Read the opinion: Tenth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

No. 21-1228 (9th Cir.), amended opinion filed May 8, 2025, for publication

Outcome: Petition denied. The Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA's particularly-serious-crime determination on a California Penal Code § 245(a)(4) assault conviction, barring withholding of removal; rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Judge Sanchez partially dissented.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero and Amy Rubenstein, on the briefs for petitioner (the Cornell Law School Asylum and CAT Appellate Clinic argued). Novo Legal Group PLLC, Kent, Washington.

What this case shaped. G.C. applies the Ninth Circuit's framework for what counts as a "particularly serious crime" under the Immigration and Nationality Act to a California Penal Code § 245(a)(4) assault conviction. Judge Sanchez's partial dissent identifies areas where the panel's analysis is contested — the kind of disagreement that, in a published opinion, can shape how the issue is presented in future cases.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014), Interim Decision #3794

Outcome: Precedent decision; appeal dismissed (adverse to respondent).

Counsel: Alma L. David, for respondent. The BIA decision lists Alma as "Esquire, Seattle, Washington" without naming a firm.

What this case shaped. Matter of W-G-R- is the BIA's modern framework for analyzing "particular social group" — the two-step test of social distinction and particularity that every former-gang-membership claim, and many other PSG claims, now has to navigate. The outcome was adverse to the respondent, and we name that plainly. But the precedent itself is one of the half-dozen BIA decisions every asylum lawyer in the country has to read.

Read the opinion: DOJ EOIR PDF (opens in new tab)

29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4186 (decided April 24, 2026)

Outcome: Precedent decision. DHS's appeal sustained; the immigration judge's termination of removal proceedings — entered on the basis of the respondent's DACA — was reversed, and the record was remanded for further proceedings.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, counsel for respondent. Novo Legal Group PLLC, Kent, Washington.

What this case shaped. The Board held that DACA, on its own, is not a basis for an immigration judge to terminate removal proceedings — the agency's position on the procedural reach of DACA in immigration court. The result is adverse to the respondent; the precedential effect is significant in a different way. Every immigration judge in the country now has to follow the rule, and every removal-defense attorney has to litigate around it. A companion habeas matter, Santiago v. Noem (W.D. Tex.), reportedly addresses the underlying detention posture and is being separately handled.

Read the opinion: BIA Interim Decision #4186 (EOIR) (opens in new tab)

No. 14-70686 (9th Cir. 2016), for publication; reporter cite 842 F.3d 1125

Outcome: Mixed result — petition granted in part and denied in part; denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture vacated and remanded.

Counsel: Alma David, counsel for petitioner (co-counsel with a University of Minnesota Law School clinic). Global Justice Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, Washington (predecessor practice — pre-Novo).

What this case shaped. Garay Reyes is the partial vindication of the same client whose BIA case became Matter of W-G-R-. The Ninth Circuit upheld the agency's PSG analysis under Chevron deference but vacated the CAT denial, holding that the BIA had applied the wrong standard of review to the IJ's predictive findings, and remanded to the agency for reconsideration under the correct standard. The two decisions together — the BIA's W-G-R- and the Ninth Circuit's Garay Reyes — show how a single asylum case can produce both adverse precedent on one ground and a real remand on another.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

857 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2017); No. 13-72048, for publication

Outcome: Petition dismissed in part and denied in part. Precedent decision.

Counsel: Alma David (argued for petitioner). Global Justice Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington (predecessor practice — pre-Novo).

What this case shaped. The Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon attempted-sexual-abuse conviction was an aggravated felony warranting termination of asylee status, and held that the court had no jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of adjustment and waivers. Subsequent Ninth Circuit cases have applied Diego's categorical analysis to different state-law records — for example, Mero v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020) distinguished Diego on its facts. The categorical-approach analysis at the center of Diego, running through Mathis and Descamps, is the framework federal courts use to match state criminal convictions against federal generic-offense definitions for immigration purposes.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

798 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2015); No. 12-70803, for publication, per curiam

Outcome: Petition denied. Precedent decision.

Counsel: Alma David, counsel for petitioner (submitted without oral argument). Rios & Cruz, P.S., Seattle, Washington (predecessor practice — pre-Novo).

What this case shaped. The Ninth Circuit held that the record before the agency did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner's tattoos, on their own, established a likelihood of torture in El Salvador for purposes of CAT deferral. Andrade sits alongside other Ninth Circuit deferral-of-removal cases that test how much the evidence has to do at the petition-for-review stage.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

951 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2020); Docket 18-3437, for publication

Outcome: Petition denied. Precedent decision.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero and Alma David, on the brief for petitioner; the University of Minnesota Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic argued.

Counsel attribution and firm affiliation sourced from the FindLaw cover-sheet reproduction; the 8th Circuit's slip-opinion text we extracted does not include the counsel block. PACER docket or firm-archive confirmation of the brief signature block is the upgrade path.

What this case shaped. The Eighth Circuit held that the BIA's standard-of-review error — substituting findings without expressly finding clear error — was harmless because a separate particularized-threat finding sustained the denial of relief. The court also upheld the BIA's corroboration requirement. The case is the firm's first verified appellate footprint outside the Supreme Court / Ninth Circuit / Tenth Circuit / BIA universe.

Read the opinion: Eighth Circuit PDF (opens in new tab)

No. 16-73082 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2018), unpublished memorandum disposition

Counsel: Alma David and Luis Cortes Romero, for petitioner.

Read the opinion: Justia docket page (opens in new tab)

No. 15-70137 (9th Cir. June 14, 2018), unpublished memorandum disposition, NOT FOR PUBLICATION, citable for persuasive value under 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Outcome: Petition for review granted; remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings in conformity with the memorandum.

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, counsel for petitioner (submitted on the briefs). Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center, PLLC, Kent, Washington (predecessor practice — pre-Novo).

What this case shaped. The Ninth Circuit reviewed a Board of Immigration Appeals order that had denied withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief. The panel (Nelson, Watford, and Pregerson — Judge Pregerson sitting by designation from the Central District of California) found two legal errors that required remand. First, the Board had engaged in de novo factfinding on the withholding claim rather than reviewing the immigration judge's factual findings for clear error, contrary to Andrade v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2015). Second, the Board had failed to consider country-conditions evidence on the Convention Against Torture claim. The petition was submitted on the briefs; three days later, the panel granted review and remanded. The memorandum joins a body of Ninth Circuit remand-review decisions that police the line between the immigration judge's factfinding role and the Board's error-review role — a recurring point of appellate leverage in withholding and CAT cases.

Read the opinion: Ninth Circuit memorandum disposition (PDF) (opens in new tab)

9th Cir. 2020, unpublished memorandum disposition

Counsel: Alma David and Luis Cortes Romero, for petitioner.

Read the opinion: FindLaw docket page (opens in new tab)

9th Cir. 2020, unpublished memorandum disposition

Counsel: Alma David, for petitioner.

Read the opinion: FindLaw docket page (opens in new tab)

9th Cir. 2021, unpublished memorandum disposition

Counsel: Alma David, for petitioner.

Read the opinion: FindLaw docket page (opens in new tab)

W.D. Washington, published order dated May 15, 2018, per CourtListener

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, for plaintiff.

Read the opinion: CourtListener page (opens in new tab)

N.D. California, published order dated February 4, 2019, per CourtListener

Counsel: Luis Cortes Romero, for plaintiff.

Read the opinion: CourtListener page (opens in new tab)

Denver Immigration Court (EOIR), termination order Oct. 5, 2017; Board of Immigration Appeals, DHS appeal dismissed March 2018. Underlying state-side context: Gov. John Hickenlooper executive pardon May 19, 2017 (Colorado clemency).

Outcome: Removal proceedings terminated by the Denver immigration judge October 5, 2017; DHS's appeal of that termination dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals in March 2018; Mr. Lima-Marin released from ICE custody, ending the removal proceedings then pending against him.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, lead immigration counsel for respondent (October 2017 through the BIA disposition in March 2018). Elinoff & Associates, Denver, Colorado (predecessor practice — the immigration representation period preceded the June 2018 merger of Elinoff & Associates and Downer Legal Group that formed Novo Legal Group). State-side pardon and habeas litigation was handled separately by Hans Meyer (Meyer Law Office); Mr. Elinoff's representation began at the federal-immigration phase following the Hickenlooper pardon.

Aaron Elinoff, now Managing Partner of Novo Legal Group, was lead immigration counsel for Mr. Lima-Marin while at Elinoff & Associates, the predecessor practice he founded before the 2018 merger that formed Novo Legal Group. The matter is included here under the same firm-at-time convention used elsewhere in this library for pre-merger work (compare Robles-Garcia v. Barr).

What this case shaped. Mr. Lima-Marin was a longtime Colorado lawful permanent resident — brought to the United States from Cuba in the 1980 Mariel boatlift as a young child, admitted as an LPR in the 1980s — who served prison time on a Colorado aggravated-robbery conviction from 2000 before the state-side litigation that preceded his immigration case: a habeas order by then–District Judge Carlos Samour Jr. in May 2017 addressing the sentencing-error issue, and a "full and unconditional" executive pardon by Gov. Hickenlooper days later. ICE detained him on the basis of the still-recorded conviction immediately after the pardon. The federal-immigration question turned on the pardon waiver in INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(vi), which provides that a full and unconditional executive pardon by a state governor of an enumerated deportability ground (a crime involving moral turpitude, an aggravated felony, high-speed flight, or multiple criminal convictions) waives that ground of deportability. The Denver immigration judge terminated removal proceedings in October 2017; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed by dismissing DHS's appeal in March 2018. The matter is a worked example of how the § 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) pardon waiver can reach a federal-immigration removability ground tied to a state conviction. It does not stand for the proposition that every state pardon resolves every immigration consequence. The pardon-waiver provision is enumerated-grounds-only, and not every conviction-based ground sits inside it — notably, certain controlled-substance, firearms, and domestic-violence grounds fall outside the waiver. The form of the pardon, the deportability or inadmissibility ground actually charged, and whether the pardon is full and unconditional as required by the statute all matter.

In a related federal civil-rights matter, Mr. Lima-Marin and Novo Legal Group filed claims against the private contractor that operated the ICE detention facility where he had been held. Danielle C. Jefferis was co-counsel on the civil-rights analysis. That matter was resolved on terms acceptable to the client by confidential settlement; the firm cannot disclose the settlement terms.

Read the public record: Denver Post 2018-03-26 — BIA dismissal of DHS appeal (opens in new tab); see also Novo Legal Group news brief, March 2018 for the firm's contemporaneous coverage.

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, complaint filed March 14, 2019 (announced at press conference March 15, 2019). Administrative Procedure Act action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Outcome: Complaint filed challenging ICE's "yearslong campaign" to deport Ms. Vizguerra without valid justification or due process; the disposition of the district-court matter is not yet posted in this library and will be added once verified against the public docket. (The firm's matter is archived; the docket-side disposition is on the verification queue.)

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff and Bryce Downer, Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado; Danielle C. Jefferis, co-counsel (academic co-counsel — not a Novo attorney; the same recurring collaboration as on the Tenth Circuit supplemental brief in Robles-Garcia v. Barr).

Mr. Elinoff and Ms. Jefferis are named on the complaint per Denver Post 2019-03-15; Mr. Downer is quoted as Ms. Vizguerra's attorney at the March 15, 2019 press conference per the same article. March 2019 representation is entirely post-merger — firm-at-time is Novo Legal Group, Denver. Ms. Vizguerra's earlier 2017 sanctuary period was handled by different counsel (Hans Meyer, Meyer Law Office); Novo Legal Group's representation is the 2019 federal-court phase.

What this case shaped. Ms. Vizguerra is a Denver mother and organizer who became a national figure during her 2017 stay at the First Unitarian Society of Denver — among other recognitions, named to the TIME 100 Most Influential People list in April 2017. When her 2017 ICE stay of removal expired in early 2019, Novo Legal Group filed a federal district-court action under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the agency's enforcement posture against her — built on a 2009 Social Security number prosecution she has long maintained was inadvertent — exceeded the agency's lawful authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. Ms. Vizguerra simultaneously re-entered sanctuary at First Unitarian on the day of the filing. The case is a worked example of how an APA action in federal district court can put an immigration-enforcement posture in front of a federal judge in a posture other than the petition-for-review process that normally governs removal-order review. It does not stand for the proposition that an APA suit can always reach an agency's enforcement decisions; the procedural posture and the form of agency action determine what is reviewable.

Read the public record: Denver Post 2019-03-15 — federal complaint and press conference (opens in new tab).

Gov. Jared Polis executive pardon, December 23, 2019 — Polis's first use of clemency or pardon powers since taking office in January 2019. Underlying state conviction: Colorado felony criminal impersonation (2010 plea, later found by a Colorado court to be tainted by ineffective assistance of prior counsel).

Outcome: Pardon granted by Gov. Polis Dec. 23, 2019 — a "full and unconditional" state executive pardon issued in a form intended to invoke the federal pardon-waiver provision for the conviction-based removability ground at issue.

Counsel: Aaron Elinoff, sole attorney of record on the pardon advocacy. Novo Legal Group, Denver, Colorado (matter opened November 2018; entirely post-merger). The 2010 state criminal plea that drove Ms. Encalada de la Torre's federal-immigration removability was handled by separate prior counsel and was later found by a Colorado court to have been tainted by ineffective assistance — that finding is part of the public record of the underlying conviction and is referenced here only to explain how the pardon application was built.

What this case shaped. Ms. Encalada de la Torre (reported in some press coverage as "Encalada Latorre" or "Encalada LaTorre"), originally from Peru, was charged in 2010 with using a Social Security number that turned out to belong to a real person; her then-counsel misadvised her on the federal-immigration consequences of the plea. A Colorado court later found that the plea was tainted by ineffective assistance. From late 2016 through 2019 she lived in and out of sanctuary across multiple Colorado faith communities. Aaron Elinoff met directly with Gov. John Hickenlooper to seek a pardon during the Hickenlooper administration; a then-applicable two-year re-review interval used by the Hickenlooper-era clemency office blocked the application at that stage. The firm strategically held the pardon application and refiled it with Gov. Jared Polis after Gov. Polis released his new clemency policy following his January 2019 inauguration. Polis granted the pardon on December 23, 2019 — his first use of clemency or pardon powers since taking office. The pardon, layered on top of the prior Colorado-court finding that the 2010 plea had been tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel, addressed the conviction-driven side of Ms. Encalada de la Torre's federal-immigration exposure. The interaction between state-court vacaturs for substantive defect (see Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003)) and gubernatorial pardons (which can reach the enumerated deportability grounds in INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(vi)) is fact-specific; it depends on the form of the conviction-elimination, the deportability or inadmissibility ground actually charged, and the language of the executive pardon itself. The matter is a worked example of how state-clemency advocacy and a prior IAC-based vacatur can together resolve federal-immigration exposure that started with a state-court conviction, and of how the timing and posture of an executive-clemency application — including the recognition of administrative time bars and the strategic decision of when to refile — can matter as much as the legal merits of the pardon petition itself.

Read the public record: Colorado Sun 2019-12-23 — Polis's first clemency act (opens in new tab); see also Denverite 2019-12-23 — pardon-day coverage for additional pardon-day coverage.