⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit reviews Martinez-Hernandez's challenge to an order removing him to Guatemala. The immigration courts found his Idaho conviction for felony injury to a child to be a particularly serious crime, which barred withholding of removal, and also denied asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Martinez-Hernandez will argue that signs of mental incompetence required procedural safeguards, and that the immigration judge unfairly relied on a probable-cause affidavit without allowing cross-examination. The government will argue that the cross-examination claim was not properly raised before the agency and that the record otherwise supported its decisions. After this argument, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition. It found no indication that Martinez-Hernandez was incompetent, upheld the particularly-serious-crime ruling, held that he had not first presented the cross-examination claim to the agency, and found insufficient evidence that he was likely to be tortured in Guatemala.

Martinez-Hernandez v. Blanche (No. 24-2966) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued June 26, 2026.