⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in Jose Baca-Hernandez versus Todd Blanche. The core legal issue is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in affirming the denial of the petitioner's asylum application and in denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings on grounds of incompetency. The petitioner, Mr. Baca, entered the United States as a child and was placed in removal proceedings as an adult. He suffered a gunshot wound to the face that left him permanently blind in one eye. He filed his asylum application more than a year after arriving in the United States, raising the question of whether his injury and resulting disability constituted an extraordinary circumstance that excused the one-year filing deadline. He later moved to reopen his case, arguing that he had been incompetent during the original hearing due to traumatic brain injury and mental health issues, and that the immigration judge failed to conduct a competency evaluation despite indications in the record. The case raises questions about procedural fairness, exhaustion of claims, and the duty of immigration judges to assess competency.

Jose Baca-Hernandez v. Todd Blanche (No. 17-70944) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 30, 2026.