Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Annachamy v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 3, 2012

Satheeskumar Annachamy, AKA Sathees Annachamy, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2011—San Francisco, California.

Amended August 19, 2013.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-041-850

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Law Office of Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran (argued), New York, New York, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director; Ethan B. Kanter (argued), Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Sean Riordan, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, San Diego, California, for Amici Curiae Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties.

Before: Raymond C. Fisher and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, and Richard Mills, District Judge.[*]

SUMMARY[**]

Immigration

The panel amended its opinion filed on July 3, 2012; granted a petition for rehearing; denied a petition for rehearing en banc on behalf of the court; and ordered that no future petitions will be entertained.

The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on the material support terrorist provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). The panel held that the material support bar does not include an implied exception for individuals who assist organizations engaged in legitimate political violence or who provide support under duress.

In the amended opinion, the panel added a statement that because Congress updated the totalitarian party membership provision in the same legislation in which it created the material support bar, it was appropriate to presume that Congress was aware of the existing legislation. The panel also added a statement that the waiver provision is still relevant in determining earlier congressional intent, even though the waiver provision was not enacted until 15 years after the creation of the material support bar.

COUNSEL

ORDER

The opinion filed July 3, 2012, and reported at 686 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2012), is amended. The amended opinion is filed concurrent with this Order.

With the amended opinion, the panel has voted to GRANT Petitioner's petition for rehearing. Judges Fisher and Rawlinson have voted to deny the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Mills so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

Petitioner's suggestion for rehearing en banc, filed September 14, 2012, is DENIED. No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.

OPINION

FISHER, Circuit Judge:

Satheeskumar Annachamy petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum and withholding of removal because he provided material support to a terrorist organization, in violation of 8 U.S.C. ยง 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). Annachamy argues that the BIA erred by applying the material support bar because (1) the organization he supported was engaged in legitimate political violence and (2) he provided support under duress. We hold that the material support bar does not include an implied exception for individuals who ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.